SLD

I voted yes and I am not a Christian. Like Dr. X, I think there are a few indications in New Testament that there was an historical figure on whom Paul loosely (very loosely) based his religion. Whether Paul was referring to physical brothers or "brothers in christ" there was undoubtedly a conflict between him and the nascent church in Jerusalem. That to me indicates that it is real - kind of like a statement against interest in a court of law. The fact that there was a church in Jerusalem and that it had serious differences with Paul points not just to an historical Jesus, but should make Christians pause. Wouldn't James and the Jerusalem crowd know more about Jesus than Paul, who never met Jesus until after the resurrection? Is it possible that this difference is much stronger than the impression given in the Epistles, and that it indeed is because the original disciples knew Paul was getting it all wrong and mixing in his understanding of various mystery cults and what not into his evangelism? Perhaps because they knew that Jesus did not resurrect from the grave? Maybe that's why Paul says little (or nothing) of Jesus's life in his Epistles - it could have easily been contradicted by the eyewitnesses of the time.

To me (and it's just conjecture), the historical Jesus was nothing more than one of a myriad of "messiahs" whose ambition was simply the destruction of Roman rule in Judea and the re-establishment of the Davidian line of Kings. Like others he failed and paid the penalty. His original followers never rejected Judaism and were later instrumental in the revolt against Rome later in the 1st Century. They were destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed and only then do we get the Gospels. Thus they were never able to counteract the Pauline version of the story.

SLD

lugotorix

True, but there is also a precedent for historical figures having miraculous stories grow up around them. The Buddha is one example. Scholars are fairly sure he existed (thanks mostly to the efforts of the Indian Emperor Ashoka who, roughly 200 years after the Buddha's death put up large pillars marking the places of his birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and death). The later stories about the Buddha feature a virgin birth -- he appeared to his mother as a regal white elephant, touched her side with his trunk, and entered her womb. I don't think it happened that way. I and other modern Buddhists tend to discount the miraculous stuff as part of the baggage that accumulates around religious figures.

This still doesn't change my belief that an assumption of Jesus' historicity is unjustified. I just think that his miracles and healings can't be used as
evidence either way.

lugotorix

Arken

Um... how do pillars placed TWO CENTURIES after his death prove he existed?

Fr.Andrew

#5

lugotorix

They don't. Notice that I said that scholars were relatively sure, not that they had iron-clad proof. The Ashokan pillars, along with textual analysis of an early scripture, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta ( which gives details about the Buddha's death that seem to be later alluded to in the Analects of Confucius, from around 400 BC), are fairly convincing, though. The sutta also places the Buddha's death in Kushingara where one of the pillars is.

If there is ever some evidence for Jesus of a similar nature, I'll have to change my vote to #2.

lugotorix

Peter Kirby

What is the date of the earliest reference to the life of Buddha? How long is that after the death of Buddha?

best,
Peter Kirby

Arken

From what you're saying, it sounds like, just like Jesus, there are no contemporary accounts outside of religious documents.

Doctor X

Come on! Look at all of the statues!!

Seriously, it may be worth having separate "what is the evidence for your founder" thread--or we can just hijack it here. I think a "concensus" of such has been reached on Junior--those who want a historical basis for the man-the-myth will not be persuaded, nor will those who feel that no evidence whatsoever for "someone" at the beginning exists.

I think the majority are waiting for more information but concede: "Hey, some guy may have existed, but that does not mean he walked on water or preached anything that is attributed to him."

Anyways, I would find more information, pro and con, regarding the "real" Buddha's existence.

--J.D.

lugotorix

The most widely accepted date for his death is around 480 BCE. If the reference in the Confucian analects is correct, that would be about 80 years later. The Pali scriptures, composed orally very early but only written down in the 1st C BCE, have some biographical info. The first full biography is 1st C CE, the Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha.

I don't think the Ashokan edicts count as religious documents. There are over 30 of them in all (7 on pillars and the rest on rock), only a handful of which mention the Buddha. Most are messages to his subjects about what a swell guy the Emperor was and which expounded on his various policies, like prohibiting animal sacrifice and practicing religious tolerance.

Again, the pillars at the major places of the Buddha's life don't prove beyond a doubt he existed, but they do lend some weight to the idea. Think about this: if the Roman emperor Caracalla (211-217 CE) had converted to Christianity and erected markers around Jesus' birthplace, the Mount of Olives, and his place of crucifixion, wouldn't it make you more inclined to believe in a historical Jesus?

lugotorix

(ps -- sorry if it seems like I've hijacked the thread. I just thought it would be interesting to compare the two figures.)

joedad

I think it would be revealing to include the Jesus in with a list of other figures, like the Buddha, and Hercules, to see who thinks who is "historical." I'm tempted to believe that a given person will not differentiate between the different personages but instead grant historicity, agnosticism or myth to all.

And if historicity is granted, is it weak or strong?