Freethought & Rationalism Archive

B.S. Lewis · 11-16-2005, 09:44 PM

I like your "<satire>" endcaps. We should make those part of the offical text editor.

Alf · 11-17-2005, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristianbeliever

Really? Why are you so certain about Buddha? I was told by Edwin Yamauchi
in a book that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than Buddha. Buddha lived about 600 BC but our main historical documentation comes to us centuries afterwards. I'm talking about stuff like Mahayana Sanskrit sutras stuff written like hundreds of years after Buddha died. Even the Pali suttas were not written for 2 to 3 centuries after Buddha. Acharya S even complains about Buddha being historical. So I'm just curious what historical records is your conclusion based on so I compare his historical records to Jesus?

Unlike Jesus, Buddha actually knew how to write and wrote some stuff on his own. This Edwin Yamauchi doesn't happen to be a biased fundie or something? I believe if you check with unbiased scholars they will generally say that it is more likely that Buddha was an historical person than Jesus. True, in both cases it is possible they were historical and also possible they were not but I believe you have a stronger case for Buddha than you have for Jesus being historical.

Alf

Alf · 11-17-2005, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

It seems to me if the collected works now known as the canon were never "canonized," then many skeptics would have a lot less to bitch about. We'd have all these ancient documents floating around (including all those that were left out of the canon), all (possibly) independently attesting that this Jesus guy walked around Palestine healing the sick and teaching about YHWH's kingdom…

It is possible you were right. It is also possible that the opposite would be the result, that we would see that the earliest of these documents do not tell about any historical Jesus person and that we thus ese that the Jesus person was a product of later redactions.

The point is, we don't have these documents available today and that is why this is at all a controversy.

Alf

Alf · 11-17-2005, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knife

We do have all these ancient documents floating around (besides the ones that made it in the canon). Each document is judged on its own. But the ones that are in the canon, made it into the canon because they were judged the most...relatively reliable...the best (amongst other qualifications).

So relatively speaking the ones that are in the canon are the top of the line.

Absolutely wrong. They were chosen for theological reasons, not historical reliability.

Alf

achristianbeliever · 11-17-2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Unlike Jesus, Buddha actually knew how to write and wrote some stuff on his own.

Exactly what documents do we have that was originally written by him? Your not being clear in your conclusions of why you believe he is more historically probable. I've read the opposite of what you just said:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm

Quote:

The Buddha instructed countless people, but he, himself, wrote nothing down, just as Jesus wrote nothing down.

http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/india/bodh_gaya.html

Quote:

Contrary to popular belief, the Buddha never wrote any of his teachings down.

http://barficulture.com/reality/arti...70b2570a8b23f0

Quote:

The Buddha never wrote anything down, instead he taught his pupils to memorise his teachings and pass them down orally. After he died, his pupils had a council gathering to agree on the Buddha's teachings, memorised them, and passed them down for hundreds of years orally. It was not until about 500 years later the sayings of Buddha were written down in a language called Pali.

So what exactly did Buddha write himself? That's not too much to ask. You just said Buddha wrote some stuff on his own. Everything I have personally read told me differently and your the first person I've heard to tell me otherwise. In fact the last website I gave tells us that nothing was written down for about 500 years. If that is the case then Buddha's probability of having existed is less than Jesus. So please tell me what documents brought you and these "unbiased scholars" to the conclusion Buddha existed more probably than Jesus.

Knife · 11-17-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Absolutely wrong. They were chosen for theological reasons, not historical reliability.

Alf

The theological reasons include a historical Jesus.

Juma · 11-17-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

It seems to me if the collected works now known as the canon were never "canonized," then many skeptics would have a lot less to bitch about. We'd have all these ancient documents floating around (including all those that were left out of the canon), all (possibly) independently attesting that this Jesus guy walked around Palestine healing the sick and teaching about YHWH's kingdom…

I think we should also consider what have been left of other mythical writings if not the chrisitians was so interested in destroying them...

andrewcriddle · 11-17-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ojuice5001

No contemporary sources that mention Hannibal? Of course there are! Polybius was both a famous historian and a military advisor in the Third Punic War. I don't think he would have made that big a mistake about who was involved in the Second Punic War!

What would you call him, chopped liver?

I entirely agree that Polybius is a reliable source on the 2nd Punic War, but he is not strictly speaking a contemporary one.

The 2nd Punic War ended in 202 BCE when Polybius was probably only about a year old.

His account of it was written probably more than Fifty years after it ended.

Andrew Criddle

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

11-16-2005, 09:44 PM	#11
B.S. Lewis Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: California Posts: 3,825	I like your "<satire>" endcaps. We should make those part of the offical text editor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.