MattV

Buddhism is often mistakenly lumped together with religions, when it is in fact not a religion.

ALL religion is predicated upon the existence of a supernatural "being" of some type. Sometimes more than one "being". There are no supernatural beings demanding worship and slavish obedience to their every utterance in Buddhism. Buddhism is concerned with the health and well-being of both the body and the human spirit - that part of each of us that makes us who and what we are. Buddhism concerns individual spiritual growth. There are no deities involved in Buddhism. Buddha himself was no more than an ordinary man, and no claims to the contrary are made in Buddhism.

Chaucer

While there are no supernatural beings demanding worship and obedience in Buddhism, there are supernatural beings in Buddhism. And those supernatural beings include Brahma, who is termed a deity by Buddha in a fair number of the very earliest writings presenting his very earliest reflections (the very earliest sermons in the foundational Digha-Nikaya collection). As for Buddha, he never terms himself a deity, true. But he does imply, although not explicitly assert, that he seeks to emulate the ethical side of Brahma, whom he references directly by name.

Chaucer

Minimalist

Nowadays, such people are treated with strong medications.

spamandham

They were back then too. That's why they "saw" things.

spamandham

Firstly, a bit of terminology is in order. The evidence 'for' any given historical figure is the same as the evidence 'against' that historical figure, as long as all evidence is considered.

In regard to Jesus specifically, it's difficult to say for sure what the earliest texts that mention him are. Some will say the writings of Paul. But there is a good argument that Paul's letters as we know them are all 2nd century works. The same for the gospels and the other NT texts.

If so, then Jesus is mentioned in the writings of Josephus as well, but it is argued by some that both mentions were inserted later for Christian purposes, or that only the one regarding James is authentic, but that 'brother of the lord' is a title for James and not a blood relationship, but Josephus confused it as a blood relationship because he was not aware it was a title.

Then there are the dead sea scrolls, which do not explicitly mention Jesus, but nonetheless reflect a growing messianic movement before Christianity and even contain phrases so close to some found in the gospels to support the idea that Jesus is a wholesale fabrication based on those ideas.

In other words, there is no clear picture.

We have to decide for ourselves which hypothesis we think is simplest with the evidence given. IMHO, the simplest hypothesis is that Jesus is not historical, but I don't hold that dogmatically and could be swayed if new unexpected evidence shows up, or if a new novel argument is made based on existing evidence that I find more compelling.

aa5874

But, the Pauline writer does not appear to have any mental problems. He seems to be in total control of his mental faculties.

Please tell me, what is the best medication for those who fabricate history?

ApostateAbe

Sorry, I meant "uncontested" as in almost nobody with relevant qualifications contests it. It is part of the same language conventions that are commonly used in all other intellectual fields. There will always be somebody out there with an air of authority who says, "I disagree!" about absolutely anything. So, there is no need to waste your time correcting me on such a point, and I won't have to waste my time clarifying myself.
Perhaps you can explain to me how that is relevant.
The earliest documents pertaining to Jesus, despite their lack of detail, do describe Jesus as someone who ate bread, drank wine, was crucified, was buried, rose from the dead, and has a striking resemblance to the "Jesus" character described in the gospels, so I must disagree with you on that point.

I must also disagree with you on the point that "Nor is there any support for the alleged quick evolution or growth of Christianity," because the preponderance of the evidence supports exactly that. We have around a dozen Christian documents that can be dated to the first century, we have a much larger selection of writings dating to the second and third centuries, Christianity becomes the dominant religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, and we have absolutely nothing before the alleged time of Jesus.

And I finally disagree with you that the myths of Jesus appear to have been modeled after Moses, but maybe you can explain yourself on that point.

Roger Pearse

[snip]

Doug Shaver

According to whom?

aa5874

Your claim is bogus. There is NO extant Christian documents that can be dated to the 1st century.

Any 1st century dating of extant Christian documents are ASSUMED not proven.