Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 04-29-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

My position is that gospel writers who were members of the Jesus Movement (one may call them Christian missionaries or even Buddhists) created the Jesus of Myth/Faith, utilizing the rich resources of Buddhism (as well as Hinduism), Judaism, and the amorphous Hellenism. If the gospel writers really were dharma-bhanakas (Buddhist missionaries) trying to present Buddha-dharma through Hebraicized gospels, they had already become members of the Jesus Movement or Christians, creating a revised dharma, the Jesus-dharma. Thus they are no different from the Hindu Brahmins like Ananda, Kashyapa, and Sariputra, who themselves became Buddhists when they became Buddha’s followers. Hindu relatives continued to consider them Hindu Brahmins just as Gautama Buddha was considered by his royal kin as a Kshatriya. But one may also view the gospel writers as simultaneously being Buddhist, Jewish, and Christian. It is in this sense that the self-styled Jewish Pharisee Saul-Paul could be considered Jewish. One may even be tempted to call Augustine of Hippo at once a Manichee and Christian, though Augustine himself would prefer to be called a Christian and Manichee or an ex-Manichee Christian; alas, Mani himself had borrowed much from his own Christian background.

Finally, the key to answer the question whether the gospel-writers were Buddhist or not lies in the application of the principles of Fuzzy Logic to the issue of origins or authorship. As comparative literary scholars of the gospels, some of us are often tempted to use the word “probably�? to resolve the issue of the origins of the gospels. We may say, basing ourselves on the evidence of the Buddhist elements in the gospels, that they were probably written by Buddhists ; on the contrary, most people say, on the basis of Old Testament references and associations found in the gospels, that they were composed probably by the Jewish disciples of Jesus. The problem with this either-or approach is that “probability�? refers only to one side of the equation and excludes the other and ignores the essential ambivalence of reality located between the two poles of bivalence, between 0 and 1, between A and not-A. I can look at an inexact oval and say, “This is probably a circle.�? My statement ignores that the drawing is also probably an oval. Fuzzy logic recognizes the fuzziness of sets to which objects can belong with various degrees or grades as in the case of a car parked in two spaces in a parking lot. It is also the case of the part belonging to the whole and the whole in part. The part cannot contain the whole unless the part is equal to the whole, but the part contains the whole in direct proportion to its size or mass. In other words, containment is not whole or none. The real world is fuzzy, so are the concepts we create and use to deal with fuzzy reality. All complex systems are fuzzy systems and boundaries are fuzzy. Such is the case with the NT gospels; they are neither totally Buddhist nor totally Jewish. The concepts of the Buddhism and Jewishness and Christianity are fuzzy sets, in which objects belong to several sets to a degree. A gospel like Mark’s or Matthew’s may be viewed as more Jewish and less Buddhist, whereas the Fourth Gospel is more Buddhist and less Jewish. The fuzzy NT gospels are both Buddhist and Jewish.

What discussion has occured about this?

Quote:

Of course this paper has a long way to go before it can actually prove that there was some major Buddhist influence, but it's a start in the right direction.

It seems more than a start! Looks like an elephant in the room has been studiously ignored!

andrewcriddle · 04-29-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Andrew

I note you state mid millenium - i e 500 AD, but how accurate is that? Could these stories be evidence that the sayings of Jesus originated somewhere else or somewhen else?

It seems generally accepted by scholars that the earliest known versions of the 'Christianised' Bodhisat prince have clear Manichaean features.

(How solid that position is I can't directly comment on, I don't know enough about it; however it is the current scholarly consensus.)

Certainly our earliest evidence of this mixed Buddha/Christ figure are post-Manichaean.

Now we know that Mani and his early followers were influenced by the Gospels (probably in the form of Tatian's harmony or Diatessaron. )

Hence the simplest solution would seem to be that the Christian elements in the Christianised Bodhisat prince come directly or indirectly from the Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy · 04-29-2005, 10:42 AM

Ummm... didn't the Buddha that spearheaded Buddhism live 500 years before the birth of Jesus? How could he have been a Christian?

andrewcriddle · 04-29-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharma

This paper is a presentation of the trial of Jesus in similarity to the Buddhist tale in Sanskrit of the "Clay Cart", it also gives dates of the earliest fragments of the Gospels to 125A.D.

Googling for the 'Clay Cart' or 'Little Clay Cart' gives widely varying dates but it is often dated around 300-400 CE.

I have no idea of which date is right but given the disagreement it can't be assumed to be pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 04-29-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Ummm... didn't the Buddha that spearheaded Buddhism live 500 years before the birth of Jesus? How could he have been a Christian?

We're talking about how the life of the Buddha was rewritten so that he eventually became a Christian Saint and what this might mean about influences of early Buddhist and early Christian tradition on each other.

This has probably nothing to do with the historical Buddha.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 04-29-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

In India, around
270 B.C., the great king Ashoka ascended the throne, and after his
conversation to Buddhism, he sent missionaries around the world to preach
the word of the Lord Buddha. There are records, left by Ashoka, that
indicate that "his missions were favorably received" in countries to the
West. There are also records from Alexandria that indicate a steady
stream of Buddhist monks and philosophers who, living in that area, which
was at the crossroads of commerce and ideas, influenced the philosophical
currents of the time.
There are strong similarities between Buddhist monastic teachings and
Jewish ascetic sects, such as the Essenes, that were part of the spiritual
environment of Palestine at the time of Christ's birth. The Essenes were
a monastic order that did not marry. They lived in the desert and were
very simple in their life styles. They did not believe in animal
sacrifice and were vegetarians. They believed in the pre-existence of the
soul and in angels as divine intermediaries or messengers from God. They
were famous for their powers of endurance, simple piety and brotherly
love. They were interested in magical arts and the occult sciences. John
the Baptist was an Essene.

Buddhism and xianity

(There is an annoying popup on this, but it is a fascinating essay).

Dharma · 05-01-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Buddhism and xianity

(There is an annoying popup on this, but it is a fascinating essay).

very informative article, that name Amonious Sakka is indeed quite fishy and might be some Buddhist name, they say neo-Platonism and several monastic cults such as the Essenes were highly influenced by Buddhism but we don't hear further.

We must remember that the missionaries who went to China and other east asian states probably had an easier time since they did not have to deal with so many religions and thus fewer languages and traditions than those that went to the middle east.

If we remember, Buddhism had a hard time in China with translating Buddhist ideas into Chinese ideas and had to use Taoist vocabulary. Similarly, they would have a hard time explaining many of their ideas in the middle east, and the religious confusion due to it's multiethnic nature would make the task even more difficult.

Christianity seems to be someone trying to attempt to unite these varying factions of the religion of the solar cults (cross etc.), Judaism and Roman cults into one Man and ONE theology, Iusus the sacrificing Son of the Sun man.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2005, 10:42 AM	#13
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Ummm... didn't the Buddha that spearheaded Buddhism live 500 years before the birth of Jesus? How could he have been a Christian?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.