Arken

This might belong in GRD, but it was brought up in the 'historical Jesus' thread so I'm putting it here for now. Who of these do you believe existed and why? Some may have blatantly obvious historical evidence for their existence. I admit I am pretty ignorant when it comes to Eastern religions. Also, I apologize if I forgot any other important figures.

lugotorix

I voted yes for those that I thought most likely to have been based on one historical figure (as opposed to a composite based on a number of real people, which I didn't think counted). I voted yes on the Buddha for reasons posted in the historical Jesus IIDB poll thread. Krishna and Hercules, because I thought they were examples of euhemerization (heroic historical figures gradually becoming deified). Mohammed I thought has some historical basis, even though, given what I've read of lpetrich's posts about alternate views of Islam, I don't think he's a lot like the portrait of the Quran and Hadiths. I guessed that Confucius was also historical; what little I've read about him sounds a lot like the ancient Greek philosophers.

IIRC, most scholars think Lao-tzu was an amalgam of a lot of old Taoist teachers. The name just means "the old master". I couldn't say without a doubt that Zoroaster existed. It seems scholars can't agree when the works attributed to him were written -- dates range from 1800 BCE to 600 BCE -- or even if they were written by one person. Moses got a no because none of the details of the Exodus have been corroborated, even though they involved a literate culture like Egypt which would have some record.

lugotorix

Spaz

I'm pretty sure that Hercules, Krishna, and Moses didn't exist. Jesus might have existed as well as Mohammed (but I didn't vote for them) and I'm more sure that Mohammed did rather than Jesus. I voted for Buddha and Confucius because I'm pretty sure they existed. Oh yeah and I said Lao Tzu because I don't know a damn thing about him so I just said what the hell and checked him. Some of the ones that I voted didn't exist were perhaps based on real people though, and I'd have to do more research...

Toto

Confucius invented by Jesuit Missionaries who historicized the author of traditional sayings (based on the model of the gospels historicizing the author of some sayings attributed to the savior?)

On Lao-tzu: "The name Lao-tzu seems to represent a certain type of sage rather than an individual. - Encyclopedia Britannica "

River

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) most certainly existed. We even have his relics and possessions. heres a link

http://www.altmuslim.com/world_comme...=P627_0_22_0_C

Prophet Jesus Christ (pbuh) was an ascetic wanderer that had no material possesions. He definitely existed...but since he Ascended to Heaven ( rather than the fictitious crucifiction) he has no burial or Tomb ( unlike most other Prophets ....that have graves/tombs). Thus, he left behind no physical trace.

Tellurian

I would guess that the image that we have today of these persons is very different from the original person or persons that were used as the basis to create the modern image of that person.

Seeing how the present day image of Robin Hood evolved from that of the original person who was arrested and hanged for tax evasion through the additions made by minstrels and other story tellers to the present legend makes me suspect that similar processes happened to those on your list, especially when the different stories about Jesus from the Gospels to the Talmud to Celsus and others are compared.

So when you ask if these persons actually existed, I would say there probably were source persons upon whom these present day images were based, but they were very different from their modern images.

Amos

They all existed just as St. Nicholas and St. Christopher existed. But who cares? The point is that their historic existance is not important but the message they left behind is. Add to this that their message is not new but just a new version of an old metaphysical event that is native to mankind (metamorphosis) why would we doubt or even care about their existance?

Let's just take Jesus who became Christ and went to heaven for eternity. I would say that that was good for him but if I now add that this eternal life ended when his body died in the second death it becomes rather obvious that we should not care about (least of all worship) the historic Jesus.

kctan

Confucius is as real as you & I. He can be found in chinese history.

Kong Fu Zi (confucius) is said to even have met & consulted with Lao Zi (based on history). The existence of Lao Zi is abit on the 50/50 side. As there's no clear record of him ever existing only thru the mouth of that junior officer who alleged that Lao Zi dictate the Dao De Jing to him. Not too sure about this junior officer, unless anyone is interested, then I'll reference thru my texts. Lao Zi is definitely an individual & liken to a sage & even an immortal to some (alot actually, just go to any Daoist temple).

If you go to China today, you can even met up with the decendants of Kong Fu Zi. One of the 'governors' during the 3 kingdom period is a direct decendant (Kong Rong).

Mohamed is historically (~5xx CE) recorded IIRC so his existence is not really a suspect.

As to the buddha, again we are resting on some historical records that are based upon something like that of jesus thru the xian bible. 'She Li Zi's (don't know the equivalent in english, roundish pebble like objects which can be found after a cremation - said to be only possible if the person is something of a sage or enlightened. This kind of 'objects' are proven truly to be able to be found in cremations. There are detailed & proven cases.), teeth et al alleged to be those left behind by the buddha can still be found on exhibit. So the possibility of buddha being historically real is higher then that of jesus.

Peter Kirby

Have these relics been subject to scrutiny? There are many foreskins, pieces of the cross, burial shrouds, etc. associated with Jesus--and even some experts recently authenticated a famous ossuary. I would probably prefer an early text to some random teeth. Speaking of which, did anyone track down the first document (religious or not) to refer to Siddharta Gautama?

best,
Peter Kirby

Arken

You're joking, right? People don't actually claim to have Jesus' foreskin, do they?