Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[Mriana]

Sure, if you read it in B&W literally word for word without considering any the metaphors or allegory symbols, instead of a literary outline that was/is most typical of such hero stories.

 

Why exactly would I take the claim that Jesus was born on December 25th as an allegory or metaphor? No one in Zeitgeist says Horus was "metaphorically" born on December 25th. Why would one automatically assume metaphor here? Most of the people reading her books or watching Zeitgeist are not going to assume this, because no says ANYWHERE that they do not LITERALLY mean what they say.

 

I think that is to be assumed, esp since we are talking about literature.

 

Besides, Horus is a fictional character, he was never actually "born", we are talking about when people celebrated his birth...and it was not in December.

 

We are talking sun worship, thus one has to look at the animistic aspects of the stories- again, once one understands this, they can better comprehend the literary aspects of these stories. Dec 25th was set due to pagan worship of the sun. One could set it for the Summer Solstice if they wanted, which does fall around late June. However, I am uncertain where anyone gets July unless the movement of the sun and humans' creation of different calendars over the centuries caused it to be moved back by a month. IF I recall correctly, there were more months in the Hebrew calendar then 12.

 

Most of the claims you are making about Buddha are false, legend says he was born to a family of royal blood, he had a father, so his birth was not particularly "miraculous".

 

The claims are not false, because the Buddhists do consider the Buddha's birth story a miraculous birth story. I have the text in the Acts of Buddha and it was indeed a miraculous celestial birth.

 

His death was not even necessarily a murder, all the legends I have read said that the poisoning was accidental. (He ate some bad food)

 

Excuse me, did you take any Buddhism classes? I have taken several.

 

The connection you are making between enlightenment and resurrection is quite weak.

 

In your opinion. You did not write the college course textbook, did you?

 

I studied Buddhism quite a bit in college, under a professor who actually called himself a "Christian Buddhist" If there were such obvious connections between the two religions he would have been talking about them non-stop.

 

Xians love to make that assumption, but it simply is not true that there are no parallels between JC and the Buddha's/

 

The connections you are making here seems quite accidental, and trying to claim Buddhism is an extension of sun worship seems down right nutty to me. It was a reformation movement from Hinduism, which had no strong link to sun worship. This the the kind of stuff that makes this whole thing look like a conspiracy theory.

 

Would you like me to quote the whole damn text from the "Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha"? That could be an extremely LOOONG post and this site might not be able to handle it all in one post. I some how take it you went to a Christian seminary that teaches literalism?

 

Twisting facts to fit your preconcieved notions and then saying "but I am speaking metaphorically" doesn't really wash with me.

 

I didn't twist anything. I only quoted to you what the college textbook states and related to other scholars such as Spong. I am only telling you what I learned directly from professors, textbooks, and scholars. I'm sorry if you can't handle it or wrap your mind around it. It seems to me as plain on the nose on a human's face, but then again, I was never a literalist.

[DarthOkkata]

Already done. See Han and Kurokaze's posts above.

 

I'm also not about to claim you're definitely wrong. I don't know, and I see nothing to convince me that you are right either. As mentioned, you've cited sections that are thought to be forgeries in your 'proof' that it was specifically 'that' Jesus.

 

Given that Jesus was a common name, and that Christ is a title that many claimed, there could have easily been several men going about as 'Jesus Christ' at the time.

 

Many of those who claimed 'Christ' were violent rebels, not all were peaceful men. Many of them were criminals and outlaws who opposed the Romans and fought as rebels. Not all of them, but there were quite a few such men.

 

The idea that there was more than one such Jesus Christ executed isn't far fetched at all.

 

Also, I don't believe there's any evidence Pilate ever executed anyone named Jesus Christ. I've heard/read that no such records prove this. At the least, there was no scribe at the trial of Jesus, and the account in the NT is fabricated, probably to fit the legend.

 

It's also worth pointing out that Pilate supposedly did not execute Jesus. Which would explain why he's not in Roman records as being executed by them. The Jews did it. Pilate washed his hands of the matter and handed him over to them to do as the laws of their people demanded of them. It seems odd to credit Pilate with an execution he had little or nothing to do with.

 

Still, there is no Roman record of Jesus being tried or executed by Pontius Pilate. It's just something that is assumed to be the case for the most part. It is odd though that no such records exist, the Romans were meticulous records keepers and a lot of these kinds of records still exist today.

 

However, it is not unreasonable to say they might have been lost or destroyed at some point. It's entirely possible they were, but that still leaves no proof that it ever happened.

 

There's a legend that he committed suicide because of being accused of the execution. I seriously doubt it's true, but it's an interesting side note.

 

Still, the idea that more than one, or even quite a few men named Jesus Christ might have been executed by Pilate is not unreasonable at all. In fact, it seems more likely that such a reference to someone executed by Pilate was likely another Jesus, because the Jesus in the Bible according to it's own story, was not executed by Pilate at all. He was executed by the Jews.

 

It could be a mishandling of the story, and indeed a reference to Jesus in the Bible, but it's just as likely, possibly even more likely, that it isn't.

[Kuroikaze]

Would you like me to quote the whole damn text from the "Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha"? That could be an extremely LOOONG post and this site might not be able to handle it all in one post. I some how take it you went to a Christian seminary that teaches literalism?

 

No, I did not, I went to a rather liberal college and majored in religious studies. did you even pay attention to the fact that I took Buddhism with a teacher who called himself a a "Christian Buddhist?" does that sound like a Fundy university to you? Yes, in fact I have taken classes in Buddhism.

 

My other professors were a universalist who used to be a Methodist minister, and a convert to reformed Judaism. The philosophy department (which I took a few classes in) was mostly made up of atheists.

 

Perhaps we could have a reasonable conversation if you didn't assume so much about me.

 

I have read quite a few textbooks on the subject as well, and I never once read any mention of virgin births, stars or wise men. The closest I remember was Buddhas father calling for some soothsayers to read Siddhartha's future.

 

Mara did come and tempt Buddha when he was nearly enlightenment. I remember my teacher making a big deal about the comparison between him a Jesus.

 

I didn't twist anything. I only quoted to you what the college textbook states and related to other scholars such as Spong. I am only telling you what I learned directly from professors, textbooks, and scholars. I'm sorry if you can't handle it or wrap your mind around it. It seems to me as plain on the nose on a human's face, but then again, I was never a literalist.

 

*sigh* I have better things to do than be insulted by you. Maybe people would be willing to converse with you civily if you stopped talking to everyone like they are moron for having the gall to disagree with you.

 

I guess that would be too much to expect though, after all everything you say is perfect. I am sure you have four PhD's in history and everyone else is a fool compared to you. You have nothing to learn from anyone else because you already know it all

[Mriana]

Would you like me to quote the whole damn text from the "Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha"? That could be an extremely LOOONG post and this site might not be able to handle it all in one post. I some how take it you went to a Christian seminary that teaches literalism?

 

No, I did not, I went to a rather liberal college and majored in religious studies. did you even pay attention to the fact that I took Buddhism with a teacher who called himself a a "Christian Buddhist?" does that sound like a Fundy university to you? Yes, in fact I have taken classes in Buddhism.

 

That is a Xian. I learned from a practicing Buddhist professor, with no Xian attached to it. I studied a State Uni and have spent over 30 years studying the crap. I learned Hinduism from one who practices Hindu professor. Judaism from a Jewish (female) rabbi who taught at the uni. One can't get much better than that, IMO.

 

Perhaps we could have a reasonable conversation if you didn't assume so much about me.

 

Don't insult my intelligence and education then.

 

I have read quite a few textbooks on the subject as well, and I never once read any mention of virgin births, stars or wise men. The closest I remember was Buddhas father calling for some soothsayers to read Siddhartha's future.

 

I did not say "virgin birth". I said "miraculous birth" AND I quoted from my college textbook. I am not sure what textbooks you read, but that is what the textbook, one of many, that I studied in class states. It broke it down very well IMO.

 

Mara did come and tempt Buddha when he was nearly enlightenment. I remember my teacher making a big deal about the comparison between him a Jesus.

 

So did mine and again, I quoted from the textbook.

 

*sigh* I have better things to do than be insulted by you. Maybe people would be willing to converse with you civily if you stopped talking to everyone like they are moron for having the gall to disagree with you.

 

IF the shoe does not fit then don't take it personally. Are you a literalists? If not, then let it go.

 

I guess that would be too much to expect though, after all everything you say is perfect. I am sure you have four PhD's in history and everyone else is a fool compared to you. You have nothing to learn from anyone else because you already know it all

 

And you're saying you do? I never said what I said was perfect, but I can see what they are saying and don't dismiss it with a wave of a hand so easily. Would you like me to run down my transcript of courses to you? Would you like me to run down who all I studied under? I do not believe what I am saying is bogus, because this is what they taught out of the textbooks. I'm sorry if you take issue with my State university education, but that is what I learned. IF it is all wrong, than I might as well go back to being a believer. I really do not think that is what you want, but quite frankly, the study and research I did is part of how I came to my thoughts and beliefs (that is more mythology) today. The point is, I see little evidence to view any of the stories in the Bible as historical and I base it on my own education. IF there ever was a man named Jesus Christ, he is too buried in mythology to find. You'd have an easier time finding Plato.

 

BTW, as I mentioned somewhere before, I spoke to Victor H. Matthews (face to face because he was one of my professor and wrote "Old Testament Parallels" as well as other books) and he even said, "You can try to tell them [that the stories are rewritten myth], but they aren't going to believe it." He's just as discouraged as I am apparently, but he was one of the first who I learned the Bible is rewritten myth.

[Mriana]

OK deep breaths and let's start over- I said miraculous births- virgin births are miraculous births. Not all parallels are necessarily considered virgin, but all miraculous births do not happen in the usual realistic human way (via sex between two humans). bright light and bright star are parallels. Everything I stated were parallels, which are not necessarily exactly word for word literally the same. Thus a literary outline of stories. Stories have outlines to them, even religious mythological stories, thus the parallels. If one were to reread what I said, I listed parallels.

 

Now here is something else... Where did people get the idea of "three" wise men? The Bible does not specify, but solar mythology does and it is three. Just something to think about.

[mwc]

Now here is something else... Where did people get the idea of "three" wise men? The Bible does not specify, but solar mythology does and it is three. Just something to think about.

The three gifts.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Mriana,

 

May I ask, how old is the oldest known Buddhist text? The one I can find is from about first or second century. So how do we know all these things about the Buddhists beliefs before 100 CE? And I think the same problem exists for some of the other religious literature too. So I'm wondering, do you have any website or list of documents and their dates? The problem I see here is that if we find it hard to accept the reliability of Christian texts and beliefs because of the oldest artifacts are not old enough, or close enough to the origin, can we assume anyway that these other religious text can? I'm just curious.

[Kuroikaze]

That is a Xian. I learned from a practicing Buddhist professor, with no Xian attached to it. I studied a State Uni and have spent over 30 years studying the crap. I learned Hinduism from one who practices Hindu professor. Judaism from a Jewish (female) rabbi who taught at the uni. One can't get much better than that, IMO

.

 

Oh please, the guy was hardly a literalist. He was a big proponent of "process theology." He wasn't an atheist but he was generally reasonable and would happily accepted any of the ideas in Zeitgeist if there was evidence that it was true.

 

I also studied Judaism from someone who was Jewish.

 

But this isn't about teachers we may have had, and whether or not they were qualified to teach in their respective subjects.

 

Don't insult my intelligence and education then.

 

Since when does questioning your claims equate to an insult? Am I not allowed to doubt your claims now? If I question the evidence I am insulting you? Well if that is the way you feel the so be it, I personally do not find YOUR questioning my position to be an insult.

 

Sorry, but I never insulted your intelligence, and I don't even know what your education is, I never asked because it is not important.

 

I did not say "virgin birth". I said "miraculous birth" AND I quoted from my college textbook. I am not sure what textbooks you read, but that is what the textbook, one of many, that I studied in class states. It broke it down very well IMO.

 

Yes, but now the connection becomes quite vague and difficult to demonstrate. hundreds of stories all of the world have heroes or gods born in strange unbelievable ways.

 

This does not necessarily imply a connection between any of them, though to be sure some of these stories probably did borrow from other stories, but to say with any certainty which did so, and from whom requires a lot more data. Some date we may never have, simply because lot of it has been lost. In the study of history we rarely have a perfect idea what went on exactly, so to make certain claims on such limited data just does not make much sense.

 

IF the shoe does not fit then don't take it personally. Are you a literalists? If not, then let it go.

 

Well, it seems to me that "literalist" is just a catch all insult you throw at anyone who disagrees with you. If not, the sorry, but that is the way it looks from this end.

 

 

And you're saying you do? I never said what I said was perfect, but I can see what they are saying and don't dismiss it with a wave of a hand so easily. Would you like me to run down my transcript of courses to you? Would you like me to run down who all I studied under? I do not believe what I am saying is bogus, because this is what they taught out of the textbooks. I'm sorry if you take issue with my State university education, but that is what I learned. IF it is all wrong, than I might as well go back to being a believer. I really do not think that is what you want, but quite frankly, the study and research I did is part of how I came to my thoughts and beliefs (that is more mythology) today. The point is, I see little evidence to view any of the stories in the Bible as historical and I base it on my own education. IF there ever was a man named Jesus Christ, he is too buried in mythology to find. You'd have an easier time finding Plato.

 

Uh, why would you go back to Christianity?

 

I became an athiest before Zeitgeist even existed, I had never even heard of it or any of Acharya's writing, perhaps you have a vested interest in her being right because the claims played into your deconversion. I can not really speak to that.

 

What I will say is that there are plenty of reasons to doubt Christianity is true without claiming it is a sun god myth.

 

When did I say the stories in the bible were historical? I would totally agree that if the gospels even are referring to a real person (or several people) that the truth is buried under mythology and I have no interest in defending Jesus. I am an atheist after all. While I think the bible is interesting from a historical perspective, it is hardly 100% accurate.

 

BTW, as I mentioned somewhere before, I spoke to Victor H. Matthews (face to face because he was one of my professor and wrote "Old Testament Parallels" as well as other books) and he even said, "You can try to tell them [that the stories are rewritten myth], but they aren't going to believe it." He's just as discouraged as I am apparently, but he was one of the first who I learned the Bible is rewritten myth.

 

Ok, lets back up a little bit here.

 

Does the bible contain mythology? Of course, I did not say otherwise at any point.

 

Did both Judaism and Christianity borrow things from other contemporary religions? Of course, I never said they didn't, even in this thread I posted several things saying this exact thing.

 

I made one claim here, that Zeitgeist, and Acharya try to make a direct connection between PARTICULAR religions, like Horus worship by using bad methodology and false information.

 

There is a huge difference between the claim that Christianity borrowed concepts from other religions, and that it started out as nothing more than another sun worship religion.

 

I gave you several examples of the bad information that was used, I can provide plenty more. If you are as widely read as you claim then you should know, that even secular historians question her methodology and facts.

 

This is not some secret conspiracy of christian theologians to hide that Christianity is Horus worship renamed. That ring of conspiracy theory is one of the main reasons I found Zeitgeist so difficult to believe. It reminded me of fundamentalists who go around saying that all those "Darwin worshiping scientists" are involved in some big conspiracy to silence opposition to evolution.

 

Any time some one goes on a diatribe about how everyone else is trying to keep me in the dark but they are going to share the truth with me, my bull shit meter goes off.

[Kuroikaze]

OK deep breaths and let's start over- I said miraculous births- virgin births are miraculous births. Not all parallels are necessarily considered virgin, but all miraculous births do not happen in the usual realistic human way (via sex between two humans). bright light and bright star are parallels. Everything I stated were parallels, which are not necessarily exactly word for word literally the same. Thus a literary outline of stories. Stories have outlines to them, even religious mythological stories, thus the parallels. If one were to reread what I said, I listed parallels.

 

So you make the stories seem to match up by minimizing the stories down to bullet points which oversimplify their overarching themes, got it.

 

 

Now here is something else... Where did people get the idea of "three" wise men? The Bible does not specify, but solar mythology does and it is three. Just something to think about.

 

Well, do we know how far back the notion of three wise-men goes? Most people believe it cause they saw a play at their church. It is just as likely that the church just put three people up there because their were three gifts.

 

It's just the same when they suggest that Jesus had 12 disciples because of the 12 zodiac signs. Ignoring the fact that many Zodiac's include more than 12 signs, 13, 16, and 20 are also common numbers.

 

Also ignoring that there were 12 tribes of Israel and it likely that the authors built this myth around that number, not the Zodiac. Of course then we could ask why the OT had 12 tribes, and that MIGHT have been based on the Zodiac, but there is no way to know, because we just don't have much information about the creation of the OT.

[Guest Thor]

The problem is that Jesus was an extremely common name, so it's more likely it was any Jesus than that Jesus.

It's not more likely when Josephus explicitly identifies this person to "the Jesus." Ant. 18.3.3 reports person called Jesus, living at specific time ("at this time"), who was crucified at the hands of Pilatus and linked with Christians, who were named after him. In Antiquities 20.9.1, the reason the identifying phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ" appears is for the identification of James. It also goes as this Jesus would be previous introduced (that is in Antiquities 18).

 

Your claims here Badger emphasize precisely what has *NOT* been validated - Jesus because Josephus mentions "Jesus" does NOT guarantee it was the biblical Jesus. There's no valid evidence demonstrating Jesus was crucified at all, no valid court case documents either. We still have no reason to believe Jesus was a real historical human at all. There's also no valid evidence supporting that the James mentioned in the biblical James. And there's even less reason to believe Josephus would use the word "Christ" and never explain what he meant by it. All of this is the flimsiest of evidence possible and as I said several times now:

 

A point of fact here is that the reason Christians are so heavily reliant upon Josephus is because there is no valid contemporary evidence for Jesus during his supposed like time. The reliance upon the TF & James passage serves to demonstrate the flimsiness of the evidence for Jesus. Even belief in a historical Jesus requires a giant leap of faith. I will accept a historical Jesus as soon as VALID evidence is offered that can stand up to peer review & scientific scrutiny. After 2,000 years none has passed the test.

 

"Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem personage called James, and a Christian reader thought he must have meant James the "brother of the Lord" who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem church about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: "James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ", and a later copyist took this as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely this way. Of course, this will be a more plausible hypothesis if there are positive reasons for doubting authenticity. One such is that in Josephus's entire work the term "the Christ", meaning the Messiah, occurs only in two passages where mention is made of Jesus, with no attempt to explain what it means to the pagan readers to whom Josephus was appealing..."

 

- G.A. Wells "The Jesus Legend" (53)

 

Even Christians agree that looking for Jesus is like looking for a needle in a hay stack:

 

"The Names "Joseph" and "Jesus" were very popular in the 1st century. "Jesus" appears in at least 99 tombs and on 22 ossuaries. "Joseph" appears on 45 ossuaries.… "Mary" is the most common female name in the ancient Jewish world."

 

- Dr. Habermas, Who Was Jesus? (107)

 

The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled (excerpt)

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

[Mriana]

Mriana,

 

May I ask, how old is the oldest known Buddhist text? The one I can find is from about first or second century. So how do we know all these things about the Buddhists beliefs before 100 CE? And I think the same problem exists for some of the other religious literature too. So I'm wondering, do you have any website or list of documents and their dates? The problem I see here is that if we find it hard to accept the reliability of Christian texts and beliefs because of the oldest artifacts are not old enough, or close enough to the origin, can we assume anyway that these other religious text can? I'm just curious.

 

I gave a date that was in BCE and double checked it. The BCE was in the textbook. No, that was the king's conversion to Buddhism r. c. 273-232 BCE. Where did you find your date, out of curiosity? The Mahayana sect emerges around the 1st century CE. So, I'm not convinced that the texts were 100 CE. The easy for me is my college textbook I quoted from and it is a fairly recent addition. I do not put a whole lot of stock in websites, but with a little time, I might be able to find one that appears to be reliable. I am not saying any religious text is reliable, I do not believe any are, except maybe the Vedas due to the meticulous teachings of the texts prior to print, but IMHO religious texts point to rewritten myth set to various cultures and these myths evolved over time to what we see today.

 

According to this (this being Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha):

 

According to that scholar [Kaniska] the Asokavadana, some early form of which was evidently known to Asvaghosa, took shape between 150-100 BC. Allowing a certain period for it to obtain recognition, we might set the upper limit at approximately 50 BC, and can therefore not be much in error if we say that the poet flourished between 50 BC and 100 AD, with a preference for the first half of the first century AD.

 

The intro to the Acts of Buddha doesn't really say a whole lot there nor is it an actual date. However, I do question the date you found and I am quite skeptical of it. Sounds like an apologists dating to me. There is probably a date that seems less suspect out there some where. With Buddhism having a 2500 y.o. history, I would say there is surely a better date out there somewhere.

[Ouroboros]

I gave a date that was in BCE and double checked it. The BCE was in the textbook. No, that was the king's conversion to Buddhism r. c. 273-232 BCE. Where did you find your date, out of curiosity?

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/s_scripts.htm

 

And I think we're talking about two things.

 

1. the earliest, oldest copies of scripture we can find.

 

2. When the religion came about, and how old the practice is

 

#1 is factual evidence we have. #2 is what we assume from text and other artifacts.

 

Christianity got texts that are 40/70 years after the events, and older, but we assume that they believed what those scriptures say they believe for an earlier period.

 

And the same goes for Buddhism.

 

Do we know if the Buddhists 500 BCE believed what the books said in 100 CE?

 

The Mahayana sect emerges around the 1st century CE. So, I'm not convinced that the texts were 100 CE. The easy for me is my college textbook I quoted from and it is a fairly recent addition. I do not put a whole lot of stock in websites, but with a little time, I might be able to find one that appears to be reliable. I am not saying any religious text is reliable, I do not believe any are, except maybe the Vedas due to the meticulous teachings of the texts prior to print, but IMHO religious texts point to rewritten myth set to various cultures and these myths evolved over time to what we see today.

Isn't 1st Century CE the same as 100 CE?

 

According to this (this being Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha):

 

According to that scholar [Kaniska] the Asokavadana, some early form of which was evidently known to Asvaghosa, took shape between 150-100 BC. Allowing a certain period for it to obtain recognition, we might set the upper limit at approximately 50 BC, and can therefore not be much in error if we say that the poet flourished between 50 BC and 100 AD, with a preference for the first half of the first century AD.

What evidence is there that it took shape between 150 BCE? My understanding they can find temples from that time, but can they find books, scriptures, or anything else to provide evidence that they truly believed these things?

 

The intro to the Acts of Buddha doesn't really say a whole lot there nor is it an actual date. However, I do question the date you found and I am quite skeptical of it. Sounds like an apologists dating to me. There is probably a date that seems less suspect out there some where. With Buddhism having a 2500 y.o. history, I would say there is surely a better date out there somewhere.

The date was from a Buddhist study website, so I doubt they are trying to convert people to Christianity by lying about their evidence.

 

I don't think there are 2500 y.o. artifacts of the scriptural kind. There are temples, and pots, and such, but are there any books, documents, scriptures?

 

If there is not, then the assumption that Buddhism belief preceded Christianity is just that, and assumption, very much like the one Christians do about Jesus, and Jews do about Moses.

 

The only way we can get to the bottom of this issue is to bring up the hard, cold facts, and the artifacts to support the claims. (And believe me, I really want them)

[Mriana]

OK if really is a Buddhist website, we have the 2nd century for the Acts: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd67.htm However, the story is older than the time it was written down, so I doubt this is quite right either and the reason why I say it is older than the date it was written is because of the time the author was alive and writing. So, we cannot say the story did not exist before that time. Not to mention, it was originally written in Sanskrit.

[Ouroboros]

OK if really is a Buddhist website, we have the 2nd century for the Acts: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd67.htm However, the story is older than the time it was written down, so I doubt this is quite right either and the reason why I say it is older than the date it was written is because of the time the author was alive and writing. So, we cannot say the story did not exist before that time.

How do we know when the original author was alive and writing? It's the same argument apologists use about the Gospels etc. Just because we cannot say the story existed before it was written, doesn't mean we can say it did either. Lack of evidence... and all that.

 

There's no evidence of Jesus either, so we conclude: No Jesus.

 

There's no evidence of the Buddhist belief before those texts, so why should we conclude there was?

 

I wish there was some hard facts instead of assumptions.

 

Here's the vision statement of the website:

BuddhaNet™ is the result of a vision to link up with the growing world-wide culture of people committed to the Buddha's teachings and lifestyle, as an on-line cyber sangha. In this way, an ancient tradition and the information superhighway will come together to create an electronic meeting place of shared concern and interests.

 

BuddhaNet is a not-for-profit organisation affiliated with the Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc, which was first established as a Vipassana Meditation Centre in 1992 in Sydney by an Australian meditation monk Ven. Pannyavaro. BDEA has since evolved as a Buddhist Information and Education Service.

 

BuddhaNet is a non-sectarian organisation, offering its services to all Buddhist traditions. It aims to facilitate a significant Buddhist presence in the ever-expanding realm of computer communications technology, applying this technology to helping make the Buddha's teachings freely available to all.

 

BuddhaNet is administered by Venerable Pannyavaro and Venerable Bodhicitta and a dedicated team of lay volunteers.

So I do think they are legit Buddhist believers.

[Kuroikaze]

Isn't 1st Century CE the same as 100 CE?

 

Just barely, 1st century would be 1 through 100 CE.

 

101 would be 2nd century.

[Mriana]

OK if really is a Buddhist website, we have the 2nd century for the Acts: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd67.htm However, the story is older than the time it was written down, so I doubt this is quite right either and the reason why I say it is older than the date it was written is because of the time the author was alive and writing. So, we cannot say the story did not exist before that time.

How do we know when the original author was alive and writing? It's the same argument apologists use about the Gospels etc. Just because we cannot say the story existed before it was written, doesn't mean we can say it did either. Lack of evidence... and all that.

 

There's no evidence of Jesus either, so we conclude: No Jesus.

 

Well then, if you want to do that, we can go to Acharya's theory that the Buddha probably never existed either.

 

There's no evidence of the Buddhist belief before those texts, so why should we conclude there was?

 

I wish there was some hard facts instead of assumptions.

 

Hard facts? Are you saying that everything taught in a university setting is an assumption? Well then... What is the purpose of an education. We might as all walk around as illiterates and write religious texts. Why not? They did that for centuries right up and including Mohammad. Guess all that money I spent (actually loans and grants) on nearly 8+ years in a uni setting was a waste.

[Guest Thor]

Kuroikaze "I did some research and found out that Horus' birth day was not even in December. It falls on July in the current calendar"

 

Rather than quote mining attempting to prove ZG & Acharya wrong - you might be wise to just do objective research. The Egyptian calendar was wondering calendar so the winter solstice would've ended up on every date of the year. Don't get confused on complex calendars. In the book that you provided it also says:

 

"the birth of Horus to Isis occurs neatly on the Winter Solstice" 106

 

"Isis, in her role as a supreme mother goddess, brought forth a Sun-child, Horus, at the time of the winter solstice" 216

 

- The Mysteries of Isis, By deTraci Regula

 

Kuroikaze "Not only that Horus was not born of a virgin, his father was Osris. He was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus"

 

"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: “I am the great virgin." - CIE 152

 

K "so they could have sex"

 

Think about what you're doing here - Osiris was cut into 14 pieces (which is the 14 days of the waxing moon) & you really think that he could 'get it up' to have sex after being put back together? These are myths - stop attempting to take them literal. You already said in post 196 "Horus is a fictional character" so, why take that sexy part literal then? I see this all to often.

 

"Osiris is the sun’s light in the moon, which is rent into 14 pieces/days as it is waxing." - CIE 510

 

K "The bit about him having 12 followers is also false."

 

He certainly did have 12 followers as the images in CIE demonstrate on page 282 citing highly respected modern Egyptologist Erik discussing "Horus enthroned before the Twelve."

 

k "She makes these claims which are clearly false, and hopes no one will research it themselves."

 

She substantiates her work in her books - which you have already admitted you've never studied. CIE consists of nearly 600 pages 2,400 footnotes/citations to primary sources & expert commentary on them from over 900 bibliographical sources. She doesn't need to "manufacture" anything at all.

 

Have you given any of the links a good going over thus far? Or are you just so biased against her work that you're never going to actually see for yourself that the views you've been sharing are the "manufactured" Christian revisionist nonsense? I would just like to know before I waste my time. The fact is she proves her case in CIE.

 

CIE

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

 

The Nativity Scene at Luxor

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

 

k "You might give a look at this site conspiracyscience..."

 

You should be more careful - read his about page:

 

"my name is Edward L Winston, I am a 20-something software engineer with an affinity for astronomy, history, politics, and crazy theories...just some community college..."

 

This is why what you're doing is degrading. He has absolutely no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever but because he knows how to build a website and has an opinion he is able to pretend to be some sort of authority when he clearly is not. He is degrading the subject due to his own ignorance. All he really proves is that he's another anti-Zeitgeist, Anti-Acharya kid.

 

k "I have actually studied stuff in this field a bit...I majored in religious studies in college"

 

The problem is all you've brought to the table is sanitized mainstream status-quo endorsed by Christianity. And, I don't blame you for that. I know what they are teaching and I'm telling you it's inaccurate when it comes to these issues - and it's demonstrably provable & That is precisely what Acharya's work does. Feel free to recommend CIE to your former teachers & professors. It's what's missing from the discussion & the courses.

 

k "you seem to have read Acharya's work fairly uncritically and without checking her sources very well."

 

That's utterly false - I started out with the very same arguments you are here. When I finally worked up the integrity to study her work - it changed everything.

 

k "I just think her claims sometimes go beyond what the evidence supports. Unfortunately, at times she seems to manufacture false information to back up those claims."

 

I thought so too - you've never studied her work. you have no idea how uttely insulting it is for anyone to claim she "manufacture false information" that is such an outrageous lie.

 

k "As an atheist, who seeks rational and balanced skepticism, I can not help but find this kind of "scholarship" to be detrimental to our cause, and seems to belong next to books like "more evidence bigfoot is real" than the works of serious scholars like Ehrman or Pagles"

 

LOL, well again, you've already admitted you've never studied her so your not in any position to determine if it's detrimental of not. I think what you're doing right now is what's detrimental - making false preconceived conclusions before ever actually studying her work. That's just demonstrating a biased judgment on an authors work before you even study it. Anybody can do that.

[Guest Thor]

from post 196:

 

Kuroikaze "Why exactly would I take the claim that Jesus was born on December 25th as an allegory or metaphor? No one in Zeitgeist says Horus was "metaphorically" born on December 25th. Why would one automatically assume metaphor here? Most of the people reading her books or watching Zeitgeist are not going to assume this, because no says ANYWHERE that they do not LITERALLY mean what they say."

 

Actually, Zeitgeist and Acharya make it categorically clear that the gods discussed are myths, allegories, metaphors, personifications & anthropomorphizations. If you ever actually studied Acharya's work you'd already know this. ZG 1 transcript:

 

"This is Horus.[M] He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC [s8] [D]. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. [s9] [s10] [M] From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set [D] was the personification of the darkness or night .[M] [s11] And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. [s12] [s13] It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day."

 

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

 

C'mon Kuroikaze, Peter Joseph uses every single one of those terms in ZG 1 in just one paragraph concerning Horus no less. Please make an effort to study "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

[Kuroikaze]

I showed you several places where information was clearly manufactured in Zeitgeist, and you just engaged in a silly song and Dance. Like this

 

Think about what you're doing here - Osiris was cut into 14 pieces (which is the 14 days of the waxing moon) & you really think that he could 'get it up' to have sex after being put back together? These are myths - stop attempting to take them literal. You already said in post 196 "Horus is a fictional character" so, why take that sexy part literal then? I see this all to often.

 

Of course they are just myths, but in the MYTH he is resurrected and has sex with Isis. How do you get the notion that I thought it REALLY happened? We are disusing mythology, both Egyptian and Christian myths, the debate is over whether or not one myth borrowed from the other, not whether or not either one really happened, since we both agree they did not.

 

It is quite silly for you to continue to create such weird strawmen of my statements.

 

then you continue on to this

 

The problem is all you've brought to the table is sanitized mainstream status-quo endorsed by Christianity. And, I don't blame you for that. I know what they are teaching and I'm telling you it's inaccurate when it comes to these issues - and it's demonstrably provable & That is precisely what Acharya's work does. Feel free to recommend CIE to your former teachers & professors. It's what's missing from the discussion & the courses.

 

This just smacks of conspiracy theory. Everyone else...including a large body of non-Christians mind you, are all being manipulated by the "MAN"

 

But I should listen to you? To Acharya? Everyone is lying to me but her? Come on. I left Christianity to get away from just exactly this kind of narrow thinking, so sorry I am not about to jump back into it in some other equally crazy sounding stuff.

 

I am sorry, that you feel I am so "deluded" you are free to ignore me and I will do the same.

[Mriana]

These are myths - stop attempting to take them literal. You already said in post 196 "Horus is a fictional character" so, why take that sexy part literal then? I see this all to often.

 

Which is what I've been trying to say also.

 

k "As an atheist, who seeks rational and balanced skepticism, I can not help but find this kind of "scholarship" to be detrimental to our cause, and seems to belong next to books like "more evidence bigfoot is real" than the works of serious scholars like Ehrman or Pagles"

 

LOL, well again, you've already admitted you've never studied her so your not in any position to determine if it's detrimental of not. I think what you're doing right now is what's detrimental - making false preconceived conclusions before ever actually studying her work. That's just demonstrating a biased judgment on an authors work before you even study it. Anybody can do that.

 

Sigh. Glad to see you here Thor. Somehow I get the feeling we are feeling the same frustrations.

[Kuroikaze]

Actually, Zeitgeist and Acharya make it categorically clear that the gods discussed are myths, allegories, metaphors, personifications & anthropomorphizations. If you ever actually studied Acharya's work you'd already know this. ZG 1 transcript:

 

Ugh...this is so silly.

 

I realize they don't believe they were real people with a real birthdate. I don't believe they were real either, but when they say both had a birth date on December 25th I assume they mean "this is the date that their mythology claims they were born"

 

Now when I look, and the mythology does not say this at all...I say they are being misleading.

[Mriana]

from post 196:

 

Kuroikaze "Why exactly would I take the claim that Jesus was born on December 25th as an allegory or metaphor? No one in Zeitgeist says Horus was "metaphorically" born on December 25th. Why would one automatically assume metaphor here? Most of the people reading her books or watching Zeitgeist are not going to assume this, because no says ANYWHERE that they do not LITERALLY mean what they say."

 

Actually, Zeitgeist and Acharya make it categorically clear that the gods discussed are myths, allegories, metaphors, personifications & anthropomorphizations. If you ever actually studied Acharya's work you'd already know this.

 

Which is what I've been trying to say too, right down to the last statement concerning myths, allegories, metaphors, etc etc.

[Kuroikaze]

Which is what I've been trying to say too, right down to the last statement concerning myths, allegories, metaphors, etc etc.

 

It seems that neither one of you have any clue what I am actually saying or arguing for even though I have spelled it out quite thoroughly four or five times.

 

I'm done discussing this with the both of you. Have a good one.

[Ouroboros]

Well then, if you want to do that, we can go to Acharya's theory that the Buddha probably never existed either.

Sure.

 

And the Buddhists didn't have the belief she claims they did, so hence Christianity was not influenced by them! That's the problem here. We can't say for sure if the Buddhist faith influenced Christianity in this area, since we can't for sure know if they believed those things before the Christians did!

 

How can we assume the Buddhists believed something year 100 BCE, because of a 100 CE document, and simultaneous we can not assume the Christians believed something 30 CE based on documents from 70 CE?

 

Hard facts? Are you saying that everything taught in a university setting is an assumption? Well then... What is the purpose of an education. We might as all walk around as illiterates and write religious texts. Why not? They did that for centuries right up and including Mohammad. Guess all that money I spent (actually loans and grants) on nearly 8+ years in a uni setting was a waste.

You're missing my point with 1,000 miles.

 

The key here is that the claim is that Buddhism influenced Christianity. That means that there must be evidence that the Buddhists believed those things before Christianity did. That's the point here. And since you have 8 years of these studies, then you should be able to provide that evidence instead of referring to the "textbook say" arguments. Is there, or is there not, artifacts in form of writings that can be dated before the Christians which contain the Buddhists beliefs? Yes, or no? I can't find it. But since you have the textbooks, then don't they have references?

[Ouroboros]

Isn't 1st Century CE the same as 100 CE?

 

Just barely, 1st century would be 1 through 100 CE.

 

101 would be 2nd century.

True. Which means a document from 100 CE would be from the 1st century (or at least at the end of it).

 

If the cult emerged in the 1st century, then it's very plausible that the document would be from 100 CE.