Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by ABuddhist »

ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:32 am
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:08 am Cite some documents.
Well, the Lotus Sutra, a lengthy prose-and-verse narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen between 50 CE and 150 CE (Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96) is over 300 pages in English translation: https://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Sutra-Revi ... 886439397/

The Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, which I have been referring to as the Flower Garland Sutra, is a lengthy prose narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen during the 2nd century CE at the earliest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddh%C4% ... ra#History). It is so long that the modern translation into English is in 3 parts, the 1st of which ( https://www.amazon.com/Flower-Adornment ... 93541335X/ ) is 884 pages long.

The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (commonly called in English the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 lines) in its English translation is over 600 pages long ( https://www.amazon.com/Large-Sutra-Perf ... 390064112/ ) and is surviving, in addition to in Sanskrit, in in four Chinese translations by four different translators: Moksala (c. 291 CE), Dharmaraksha (c. 286 CE), Kumārajīva (C. 403 CE), and Xuánzăng (c. 660 - 663 CE): Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220 [2], scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1 [2]. See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Pra ... S%C5%ABtra . The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra received the Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509), which is a large and encyclopedic commentary to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (344–413 CE).

Is this sufficient evidence?
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 6:59 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 6:43 pm
I was kind enough to cite sources supporting my claims about Buddhism in response to your request.
You did not cite anything. Just gave a link. Not how it's done around here.
You aare either lying or revealing how you do not bother to read what I write.

Herre was my series of citations
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:32 am
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:08 am Cite some documents.
Well, the Lotus Sutra, a lengthy prose-and-verse narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen between 50 CE and 150 CE (Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96) is over 300 pages in English translation: https://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Sutra-Revi ... 886439397/

The Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, which I have been referring to as the Flower Garland Sutra, is a lengthy prose narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen during the 2nd century CE at the earliest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddh%C4% ... ra#History). It is so long that the modern translation into English is in 3 parts, the 1st of which ( https://www.amazon.com/Flower-Adornment ... 93541335X/ ) is 884 pages long.

The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (commonly called in English the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 lines) in its English translation is over 600 pages long ( https://www.amazon.com/Large-Sutra-Perf ... 390064112/ ) and is surviving, in addition to in Sanskrit, in in four Chinese translations by four different translators: Moksala (c. 291 CE), Dharmaraksha (c. 286 CE), Kumārajīva (C. 403 CE), and Xuánzăng (c. 660 - 663 CE): Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220 [2], scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1 [2]. See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Pra ... S%C5%ABtra . The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra received the Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509), which is a large and encyclopedic commentary to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (344–413 CE).

Is this sufficient evidence?
And here are all of the links in that set of citations.
Furthermore, because you regard only links to websites as valid citations (WHY!?), here is an additional link about the Lotus Sutra: www.iop.or.jp/Documents/0010/kajiyama.pdf

And from this,
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:45 am
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:11 am Show Buddhist "gospels" developed from an obsession with messianic chronology i.e. that after a certain number of years the messiah or Buddha would come and that the fulfillment of these calculations was/were entirely fictitious i.e. a hoax and that this sham became the centerpiece to an acceptance of a historical savior where believers gathered in centers of worship ritually confessing AT EVERY GATHERING from at least 150 years from the event stretching into modern times that this savior came under a temporal ruler who was known to have governed at a specific time and place. Good luck.
Budd Buddhism is not based to such a strong degree upon chronology or upon the arrival of an anticipated saviour, excepting cults around Metteya/Meitreya Buddha.

The notable exception is the Kalacakra Tantra from Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, but that arose in response to Islamic depredations and influences.

Furthermore, I agree with you that Jesus was a historical figure. I am just questioning how reliable the gospels are as accounts.

But Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which like the gospels in certain models, are later prose (or prose-and-verse) fictions (some of which are very long) about a real person (Shakyamuni Buddha), which have become the bases for rites of various sorts. For an obvious example, the Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūrya-prabhā-rāja Sūtra (readable here: https://chungtai.org.au/wp-content/uplo ... hagata.pdf), commonly called the Medicine Buddha Sutra, which has been found in manuscripts dated to before the 7th century CE (Bakshi, S.R. Kashmir: History and People. 1998. p. 194), is a fictitious prose narrative about Shakyamuni Buddha preaching about a being, the Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūrya-prabhā-rāja, and prescribing a ritual, which some Mahayana Buddhists still perform.
I provided the following link:
Which I supplement with another link because you are refusing to trust other ways of citing things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaisajyaguru#Origin
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by Secret Alias »

There's nothing cited. Cite the relevant material in your post. That's how it's done around here.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 7:02 pm There's nothing cited. Cite the relevant material in your post. That's how it's done around here.
What do you mean? How is this not a post citing relevant material?
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:32 am
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:08 am Cite some documents.
Well, the Lotus Sutra, a lengthy prose-and-verse narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen between 50 CE and 150 CE (Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96) is over 300 pages in English translation: https://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Sutra-Revi ... 886439397/

The Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, which I have been referring to as the Flower Garland Sutra, is a lengthy prose narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen during the 2nd century CE at the earliest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddh%C4% ... ra#History). It is so long that the modern translation into English is in 3 parts, the 1st of which ( https://www.amazon.com/Flower-Adornment ... 93541335X/ ) is 884 pages long.

The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (commonly called in English the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 lines) in its English translation is over 600 pages long ( https://www.amazon.com/Large-Sutra-Perf ... 390064112/ ) and is surviving, in addition to in Sanskrit, in in four Chinese translations by four different translators: Moksala (c. 291 CE), Dharmaraksha (c. 286 CE), Kumārajīva (C. 403 CE), and Xuánzăng (c. 660 - 663 CE): Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220 [2], scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1 [2]. See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Pra ... S%C5%ABtra . The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra received the Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509), which is a large and encyclopedic commentary to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (344–413 CE).

Is this sufficient evidence?
Furthermore, you have not provided to me any evidence that the only acceptable way to cite things in this forum is through providing links to websites as parts of our posts (which I did do, even as you bizarrely claim that I did not).

Indeed, I have come upon, within this forum, the following alternative ways in which sorces are cited which are not links within posts.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:21 am b) one example:
Jesus and the oral gospel tradition
edited by Henry Wansbrough.
Sheffield : Sheffield Academic Press, 1991
Year: 1991
Description: 469 pages ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Series: Journal for the study of the New Testament supplement series ;; 64; Variation: Journal for the study of the New Testament.; Supplement series ;; 64.
Contents: Oral tradition / Oivind Andersen -- Prolegomena to the study of oral tradition in the Hellenistic world / David E. Aune -- Oral tradition in the Old Testament / Hans-Peter Ruger -- Oral tradition and written transmission, or the heard and seen word in Judaism of the Second Temple period / Shemaryahu Talmon -- Orality in pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism at the turn of the eras / Philip S. Alexander -- Jesus as preacher and teacher / Rainer Riesner -- Oral tradition and the aphorisms of Jesus / David E. Aune -- Illuminating the kingdom / Birger Gerhardsson -- The making of narratives in the synoptic gospels / E. Earle Ellis -- Oral tradition before, in, and outside the canonical passion narratives / Marion L. Soards -- John and the oral Gospel tradition / James D.G. Dunn -- Paul and the oral Gospel tradition / Traugott Holtz -- Does the Didache contain Jesus tradition independently of the synoptic gospels? / Willy Rordorf -- Some consequences of Birger Gerhardsson's account of the origins of the Gospel tradition / Ben F. Meyer.
Standard No: ISBN: 1850753296; 9781850753292;
Steven Avery wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:43 pm Sinaiticus Terminus Post Quem

One significant element of the Eusebian canons can be seen in Dirk Jongkind’s Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2013), which has a wonderful Eusebian canon analysis section.

Dirk notices numerous anomalies in the Eusebian canons in Sinaiticus that are the result of:

transmission history
corruption
conflation

Since the Eusebian canons are dated to the early 4th century, realistically we can estimate 200 years or more for these competing and conflicting and conflating transmission lines to occur.

This pushes forward the terminus post quem of Sinaiticus about two centuries from the current Tischendorf-inspired “scholarship-consensus” date,

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Steven Avery

======

Dirk Jongkind sections here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12692
Ken Olson wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 8:00 am
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 5:20 pm If so, who and when?
Graham H. Twelftree, 'Jesus in Jewish Traditions', in Gospel Perspectives, Volume 5, The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, edited by David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 289-41.

Twelftree discusses the phrase 'James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" from Ant. 20.200 on pp. 297-301, and concludes that it did not originate with Josephus. He discusses the Testimonium on pp. 001-310, including brief discussions of the Slavonic and Arabic versions, and considers it to be partially authentic with interpolations. Twelftree is still active and has other works discussing Jesus as a miracle worker. Some of them mention the Testimonium, but do not discuss it in as much detail as he does here.

Dave Allen, an inactive member of this forum but an active member, and moderator, of the Historical Jesus, higher criticism, and Second Temple Judaism group on Facebook has a blog about the historical Jesus in which he discusses his reconstruction of the supposedly original Testimonium here:

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12 ... cal-jesus/

He rejects the authenticity of the mention of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ in Ant. 20.200:

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/07/17 ... s-passage/

He has a very recent paper proposing a model reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum published in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism online here:

http://jgrchj.net/

Best,

Ken
Chrissy Hansen wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:12 pm I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere. But I've been trying to survey to see who else takes this position. Here is a collection I've come up with of references since 1960 in English, French, and German.

Anyone know any other references? Please feel free to add to my list.

Yakov Lentsman, L’Origine du Christianisme (Moscow: Editions en langues etrangeres, 1961), 66

Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263 says "the remarks about Jesus, and probably portions of the other passages as well [referring to John the Baptist], do not in fact go back to Josephus at all, but are insertions by a later hand."

Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131

Léon Herrmann, Chrestos. Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 99–104

R. Joseph Hoffmann, Jesus Outside the Gospels (Amherst: Prometheus, 1984), 55 refers to the passage as "mutilated" by Christians

Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in David Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332 considers the James passage an interpolation but the Testinomium Flavianum partially authentic.

Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 333

Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22

Hermann Detering, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011), 22–29

Christopher M. Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion.” The Journal of Biblical Theology 4, no. 3 (2021): 139–162 (I am including myself for completeness, I consider it an interpolation)

Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89 declares that both references to Jesus are likely interpolations (59)

Sabrina Inowlocki, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?" Revue des études juives, 170, no. 1–2 (2011): 21–49 (thanks Ken!), argues that Origen's version was the original and the textus receptus is therefore inauthentic

Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 489–514

James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery: The Resurrection Tomb that Reveals the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), 235 argue that "called the Christ" was an interpolation

Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia About the Lord (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 548 argues that “who was called the Christ” is an interpolation, but that Jesus may have been mentioned in book 18.

Robert M. Price, Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone (Amherst: Prometheus, 2014), 243–4 argues it likely referred to Jesus ben Damneus.

Raphael Lataster, “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources,” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015): 63–96

Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A reevaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7 (2017): 1–27

Ivan Prchlík, “Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty,” in Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj (eds.), Antica Slavica (Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018), 77–152 and 280–6.

Dave Allen, [forthcoming article reconstructing the TF in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism] holds that the James Passage did not originally refer to Jesus.

S. I. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33 considers it probably inauthentic, possibly referring to a different "Jesus" originally.

Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52 contends that all references to Jesus in Josephus were interpolations and even suspects the Classical authors as well.

Kurt L. Noll, "Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus," in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), 'Is this not the Carpenter?' The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233-266 (250n56) says " I doubt that the two passages in Josephus that mention Jesus and James were unmolested by later Christian scribes. [...] In addition to the usual (and significant) arguments against the authenticity of the two passages in Josephus (A. J. 18.3.3; 20.9.1), it is worth noting that Josephus never uses the word ‘Christ’ except when mentioning Christianity’s Jesus, which suggests that the word was interpolated in both passages".

For all of these reasons, I think that you are merely unwilling to admit that I was able to provide citations for my claims about Buddhist scriptures and commentaries - but rather than admitting that, you move the goalposts, as it were. Certainly, you are not addressing the claims which I have provided citations for except to condemn me for my poor stryle of citation.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 7:02 pm There's nothing cited. Cite the relevant material in your post. That's how it's done around here.
Furthermore, I did provide citations.
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:32 am
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:08 am Cite some documents.
Well, the Lotus Sutra, a lengthy prose-and-verse narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen between 50 CE and 150 CE (Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96) is over 300 pages in English translation: https://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Sutra-Revi ... 886439397/

The Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, which I have been referring to as the Flower Garland Sutra, is a lengthy prose narrative claiming to be truth which is regarded by nonMahayana Buddhists and nonBuddhists as having arisen during the 2nd century CE at the earliest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddh%C4% ... ra#History). It is so long that the modern translation into English is in 3 parts, the 1st of which ( https://www.amazon.com/Flower-Adornment ... 93541335X/ ) is 884 pages long.

The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (commonly called in English the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 lines) in its English translation is over 600 pages long ( https://www.amazon.com/Large-Sutra-Perf ... 390064112/ ) and is surviving, in addition to in Sanskrit, in in four Chinese translations by four different translators: Moksala (c. 291 CE), Dharmaraksha (c. 286 CE), Kumārajīva (C. 403 CE), and Xuánzăng (c. 660 - 663 CE): Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220 [2], scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1 [2]. See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Pra ... S%C5%ABtra . The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra received the Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509), which is a large and encyclopedic commentary to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (344–413 CE).

Is this sufficient evidence?
And here are all of the citations fron that text which I wrote.
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:32 am Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96.
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221
Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222
Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4,
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223
Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3,
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220,
scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1.
Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509.
And from this,
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:45 am
Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:11 am Show Buddhist "gospels" developed from an obsession with messianic chronology i.e. that after a certain number of years the messiah or Buddha would come and that the fulfillment of these calculations was/were entirely fictitious i.e. a hoax and that this sham became the centerpiece to an acceptance of a historical savior where believers gathered in centers of worship ritually confessing AT EVERY GATHERING from at least 150 years from the event stretching into modern times that this savior came under a temporal ruler who was known to have governed at a specific time and place. Good luck.
Budd Buddhism is not based to such a strong degree upon chronology or upon the arrival of an anticipated saviour, excepting cults around Metteya/Meitreya Buddha.

The notable exception is the Kalacakra Tantra from Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, but that arose in response to Islamic depredations and influences.

Furthermore, I agree with you that Jesus was a historical figure. I am just questioning how reliable the gospels are as accounts.

But Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which like the gospels in certain models, are later prose (or prose-and-verse) fictions (some of which are very long) about a real person (Shakyamuni Buddha), which have become the bases for rites of various sorts. For an obvious example, the Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūrya-prabhā-rāja Sūtra (readable here: https://chungtai.org.au/wp-content/uplo ... hagata.pdf), commonly called the Medicine Buddha Sutra, which has been found in manuscripts dated to before the 7th century CE (Bakshi, S.R. Kashmir: History and People. 1998. p. 194), is a fictitious prose narrative about Shakyamuni Buddha preaching about a being, the Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūrya-prabhā-rāja, and prescribing a ritual, which some Mahayana Buddhists still perform.
I provided the following citation within that text:
ABuddhist wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:45 am Bakshi, S.R. Kashmir: History and People. 1998. p. 194
[/quote]

I have removed all of the text which was not citation in order to allow you to see my cited sources better.

Kajiyama, Yuichi (2000), "The Saddharmapundarika and Sunyata Thought", Journal of Oriental Studies, 10: 72–96.
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大), volume 8, text no. 221
Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 2,
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 222
Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 4,
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 大 大 藏經), volume 8, text no. 223
Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 7, text no. 3,
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (大 正 新 修 修 大 藏經), volume 7, text no. 220,
scrolls 401-478 Zhōnghuá dàzángjīng (大 日本 續 藏經), volume 1-6, text no. 1.
Dà zhìdù lùn (大智度論, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, T no. 1509.
Bakshi, S.R. Kashmir: History and People. 1998. p. 194
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by ABuddhist »

I am willing to concede that I misunderstood Secret Aliuas's reference to links in connection with my claims as demand for links rather than as a demand that I provide more than links.

But is Secret Alias willing to concede that he missed the citations connected to my claims which were not links?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't enjoy being at this forum other than engaging with serious academics. I am just being honest. At best hanging out here prevents me from wasting money. Just show me an example in Buddhism where:

1. a chronology was developed from some fixed point in history
2. a "messianic figure" is said to have appeared within that chronology and predicted from that chronology (i.e. prophesies, predictions, fortune telling)
3. and where that "messianic figure" is known to have never existed.

That's what it's all about. I am saying that:

a. Jesus was originally understood to be a god
b. this god came down from heaven within a tight chronology and in some sense predicted by prophetic voices in the past
c. as such it's not a "myth" per se but a theophany

I hate, hate, hate the term "mythicism" because it has overtones of lies, deception, never happened things, ahistorical occurrences, imaginary people and happenings which I don't think was in keeping with the beliefs of the early religion. Jews believed in the theophany at Sinai. Christians believed in the same god having a theophany later.

I think Judaism and Christianity were different than other religions in this respect. I know this is a waste of time trying to explain. But you just don't get early Judaism/Samaritanism. Moses was "the Man" who met God "the Man." Then "the Man" God came down again later. That's the gospel. There is nothing like this in other religions. Nothing at all.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by Secret Alias »

If you get all "general" about things. Of course eating a tomato is "like" eating a hedgehog. But ...
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8619
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 9:33 am I don't enjoy being at this forum other than engaging with serious academics.
Some of the occasions when I have found it most interesting are when non-academics have put out their interpretations of non-canonical texts. There's a lot of variety in views on the New Testament in scholarship, but the output and ingenuity drops off a bit in patristics and other areas. And, yes, here I'm also thinking of your threads, for example.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by Secret Alias »

I am just an unusual fellow. I have to think I am "doing something" practical even engaging in silliness like the Bible. Just hanging around with people shooting the shit strikes me as wrong. It's a peculiarity of my personality. Not sure how I ended up with this crazy attitude. I never have fun but I don't work that hard. I guess it's a life.

I think this forum helped me solve the Bible as it were. For that I will be always grateful. I think my theory is right about the gospel and its relationship to Judaism. I rarely "flog" the theory any more in the forum. Only when I wasn't sure. Now it's just dotting the I's and crossing the T's. Thanks Peter.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed May 03, 2023 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Is the claim that Jesus's historicity is irrelevant for Christian origins as controversial as mythicism is?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 9:33 am Just show me an example in Buddhism where:

1. a chronology was developed from some fixed point in history
2. a "messianic figure" is said to have appeared within that chronology and predicted from that chronology (i.e. prophesies, predictions, fortune telling)
3. and where that "messianic figure" is known to have never existed.

That's what it's all about.
Why do you insist upon such strict parallels? Earlier in this thread, you were only seeking a novel upon which a religion was based. I think that you are moving the goalposts.

But bcause you are so insistant, I will tell you that I have mentioned the Kalacakra Tantra as an example of such a text and a tradition, although it is not mainstream within Buddhism.

I understand that the Kalacakra Tantra has a very elaborate calendrical system anmd is about how in another world, a benewvolent Buddhist ruler rules in peace in the world Shambhala and in a specified year in the future (which can be calculated within the Gregorian calendar) he will arrive upon our world and destroy a world-spanning Islamic empire.

Again, I have very little interest in or knowledge of the Kalacakra Tantra, which even among Buddhist sects which believe it - of which mine is not 1 - it is considered to be restricted to spiritual elites.

But a convenient introduction to the Kalcakra Tantra's claims and development, written by the scholar Dr. Alexander Berzin (PhD in 1972 from Harvard University jointly between the Departments of Sanskrit and Indian Studies and Far Eastern Languages (Chinese)) - about whom you can read here: https://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin has been provided here: https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... kalachakra

I quote:

The Compilation of The Abridged Kalachakra Tantra

From the point of view of Western scholarship, The Abridged Kalachakra Tantra and its main commentary, Stainless Light, are probably combinations of portions written in different places at different times. It is difficult, however, to date their compilation, in Sanskrit, in their present full form.

The Abridged Kalachakra Tantra (I.27) states that 403 years before the establishment of the sixty-year prabhava (Tib. rab-‘byung) calendar cycle was the year of the lord of the mlecchas, namely Muhammad. Accordingly, the first sixty-year Kalachakra cycle began in 1027 CE. The Tibetan astrological tradition considers this the year that the Kalachakra teachings were introduced to Tibet from India. This assertion refers to the Kalachakra calendar and the calculations for preparing it.

Other Tibetan scholars have taken 1027 CE to be the year when the Kalachakra teachings entered India. Kedrub Je, however, after citing this opinion and analyzing the texts, concluded that it was difficult to say with any certainty that this was the year that Kalachakra entered India. The Kalachakra texts simply state that the first 60-year cycle starts then.

At least one place where the Kalachakra teachings would have been available by 1027 would have been Kashmir. At the end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh centuries CE, Kashmir was a center for both Buddhist and Hindu Shaivite tantra. The presence of Kalachakra teachings in Kashmir prior to 1027 could indicate that some details about the battle against the non-Indic invaders were later added to an earlier stratum. Thus, despite the Kalachakra texts predicting the non-Indic invasion to take place in 2424 CE, the texts might have been basing their description of the future battle on the past invasion of Kashmir by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1015 or 1021 and his defeat purportedly by the tantric means of Buddhist mantras. Since the Ghaznavids had already taken Multan by this time, the Kalachakra compilers could have been confusing Ismaili beliefs with those of Sunni Islam. Based on such confusion, they would have ascribed a modified Ismaili list of prophets to the Sunni invaders and incorrectly believed that Mahmud of Ghazni had declared himself Mahdi, which he never did.

Moreover, according to the Kalachakra texts, the non-Indic invasion will be launched from Delhi (Skt. Dili). Delhi, here, cannot refer to the actual city with that name, which was built only in the twelfth century CE, long after the Kalachakra literature appeared in India. The name appears in Indian literature, however, as early as the first century BCE, to refer to a larger area around what later became the city of Delhi, probably eastern Punjab. Mahmud’s attack on the Lohara fort and Kashmir, then, was, in fact, launched from Delhi.

Further, Kashmir seems to have been the likely model for the geographical description of Shambhala. Like Shambhala, the Srinagar valley of Kashmir is surrounded by a ring of snow mountains and has in its center the two-sectioned Dal Lake.
Summary

Regardless of the significance of 1027 CE and the exact date of the compilation of the Kalachakra texts, it is clear that the list of the non-Indic invaders’ prophets found in them is an adaptation of the Ismaili list. In addition, it seems quite likely that the historical reference of the invasion of Shambhala is a conflation of the Multan Fatimid Ismaili threat to the Sunni Ghaznavids in eastern Afghanistan and the attacks of Mahmud of Ghazni against the Hindu Shahis in Gandhara, Oddiyana, and the Indian Punjabi vicinity of Kashmir.

And here are other sources about the Kalacakra Tantra, from https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... bliography

Abegg, M. Emil. Der Messiasglaube in Indien und Iran auf Grund der Quellen dargestellt. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1928.

Ali, Syed Muzafer. The Geography of the Puranas. New Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1966.

Bernbaum, Edwin. The Mythic Journey and Its Symbolism: A Study of the Development of Buddhist Guidebooks to Shambhala in Relation to Their Antecedents in Hindu Mythology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1985.

_______. The Way to Shambhala. New York: Anchor Books, 1980.

Berzin, Alexander. "Buddhista Tantra" in Dharma-füzetek 5. Budapest: Buddhista Föiskola, 1996, 1-46.

_______. Guidelines for Receiving the Kalacakra Empowerment. Seattle: Dharma Friendship Foundation, 1989.

_______. Einführung in das Kalachakra-Tantra. Jägerndorf, Germany: Aryatara Institut, 1985.

_______. Einführung in Tantra. Munich: Aryatara Institut, 1993.

_______. "Enseñanza sobre Tantra" in Nagaryuna, no. 30, Valencia, Spain, July – Sept. 1995, 15-22.

_______. "Introduccion a los Compromisos y su Significado" in Nagaryuna, no. 3, Valencia, Spain, Oct – Nov 1988, 24-27.

_______. Introduction à l'Initiation de Kalatchakra. Lavaur, France: Institut Vajrayogini, 1986.

_______. "An Introduction to Tibetan Astronomy and Astrology" in Tibet Journal, vol. 12, no.1, Dharamsala, Spring 1987.

_______. "Kalachakra Initiatie" in Maitreya Magazine, vol.7, no.2, Emst, Holland, 1985.

_______. "Tibetan Astro Studies" in Chö-Yang, Year of Tibet Edition, Dharamsala, 1991, 181-192.

_______. "Tibetan Astrology and Astronomy" in Maitreya Magazine, vol 11, no. 4, Emst, Holland, 1989.

_______. "Tibetaanse Sternenkunde en Astrologie" in Maitreya Magazine, vol. 7, no. 3, Emst, Holland, 1985.

_______. "Tibetische Astro-Wissenschaften: Dem Karma auf der Spur" in Tibet und Buddhismus, vol. 40, Hamburg Germany, January-March, 1997.

_______. "Uvod u tibetsku astronomiju i astrologiju" in Kulture Istoka, vol. 10, Beograd, October- December, 1986.

_______. "Visualisatie" in Maitreya Magazine, vol. 9, no. 2, Emst, Holland, 1987.

Brauen, Martin. Das Mandala: Der heilige Kreis im tantrischen Buddhismus. Koln: DuMont, 1992.

Bryant, Barry. The Wheel of Time Sand Mandala: Visual Scripture of Tibetan Buddhism. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995.

Bryant, Barry and Yignyen, Tenzin. Process of Initiation: The Indo-Tibetan Rite of Passage into Shambala: The Kalachakra Initiation. New York: Samaya Foundation and Namgyel Monastery, 1990.

Del Vico, Enrico (ed.). Kalachakra. Rome: Editalia Edizioni d'Italia, 1996.

Dhargyey, Geshe Ngawang, "Introduction à l'Initiation de Kalachakra" in Le Tibet Journal. Anduze, France: Editions Dharma, 1985.

_______. "Introduction to the Kalacakra Initiation" in Tibet Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, Dharamsala, July-September 1975; reprinted in Kalachakra Initiation, Madison, 1981. Madison, Wisconsin: Deer Park Books, 1985.

_______. Kalachakra Tantra. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1985.

Dikshit, K. N. "Buddhist Centres in Afghanistan" in India's Contribution to World Thought and Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras: Vivekananda Rock Memorial Committee, 1970, 229-238.

Dudjom Rinpoche. Perfect Conduct: Ascertainng the Three Vows, with root text by Ngari Panchen. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1996.

Grönbold, Günter. "Materialien zur Geschichte des Sadanga Yoga II: Die Offenbarung des Sadanga-yoga im Kalachakra-System," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 28, nos. 1-2 (1984), 43-56.

_______. "Materialien zur Geschichte des Sadanga Yoga III: Der sechsgliederige Yoga des Kalacakra Tantras," Asiatische Studien, vol. 37, no. 1 (1983), 25-45.

Grünwedel, Albert. Der Weg nach Shambhala. (Abhandlung der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 29, no. 3). Munich: 1915.

Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, 3 vols. (vol. 1: The Classical Age of Islam). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Hoffmann, Helmut. "Buddha's Preaching of the Kalacakra Tantra at the Stupa of Dhanyakataka" in German Scholars on India, vol. 1. Varanasi: Chowkhambha Sanskrit Series Office, 1973, 136-140.

_______. "Das Kalacakra, die letzte Phase des Buddhismus in Indien," Saeculum, vol. 15 (1964), 125-131.

_______. "Kalacakra Studies I: Manichaeism, Christianity and Islam in the Kalacakra Tantra," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 13, no. 1 (1969), 52-73. "Kalacakra Studies I: Addenda et Corrigenda," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 15, no. 4 (1972), 298-301.

_______. "Literaturhistorische Bemerkungen zur Sekoddeshatika des Nadapada" in Beiträge zur indischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von der deutschen Indologie, Walther Schubring (ed.). Hamburg: Cram, De Gruyter, 1951, 140-147.

_______. "Manichaeism and Islam in the Buddhist Kalacakra System," in Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of the History of Religions 1958. Tokyo: 1960, 96-99.

Kalachakra Initiation, Madison, 1981. Madison, Wisconsin: Deer Park Books, 1985.

Kalu Rinpoche. The Kalachakra Empowerment: Taught by the Venerable Kalu Rinpoche. Vancouver: Kagyu Kunkhyab Choling, 1986.

Kamtrul, Garjang, "Geographie et Histoire de Shambhala" in Le Tibet Journal. Anduze, France: Editions Dharma, 1985.

_______. "The History and Geography of Shambhala" in Tibet Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, Dharamsala, July-September 1975.

Kollmar, Paulenz. "Utopian Thought in Tibetan Buddhism: A Survey of the Shambhala Concept and Its Sources," Studies in Central and East Asian Religions, vol. 5/6 (1992/3), 78-96.

Kuwayama, Shoshin. "The Turki Shahis and Relevant Brahmanical Sculptures in Afghanistan," East and West, vol. 26, nos. 3-4 (September – December 1976), 375-408.

Mullin, Glenn H. The Practice of Kalachakra. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1991.

Nadapada. Iniziazione: Kalachakra/Naropa: a cura di Raniero Gnoli e Giacomella Orofino. (Bibioteca Orientale, no. 1). Milan: Adelphi, 1994.

Newman, John. "Buddhist Sanskrit in the Kalacakra Tantra," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 11, no. 1 (1988), 123-140.

_______. The Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayana Buddhist Cosmology in the Kalacakra Tantra. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1987.

_______. "The Paramadibuddha (the Kalacakra Mulatantra) and Its Relation to the Early Kalacakra Literature," Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 30 (1987), 93-102.

Nihom, N. "Notes on the Origin of Some Quotations in the Sekoddeshatika of Nadapada," Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 27 (1984), 17-26.

Orofino, Giacomella. Sekoddesha: A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translations. (Serie Orientale Roma, no. 72). Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1994.

Polichetti, Massimiliano A. "Il Sitema di Kalachakra e le caratteristiche del Buddismo Tibetano" in L'immagine Tibetana del Tempo, Il Mandala di Sabbie Colorate di Kalachakra (Eugenio La Rocca, ed.). (Comune di Roma Ripartizione, no. 10). Rome: Acquario Romano, 1993, 19-28.

Reigle, David. Kalacakra Sadhana and Social Responsibility. Santa Fe: Spirit of the Sun Publications, 1996.

_______. The Lost Kalacakra Mula Tantra on the Kings of Shambhala. (Kalacakra Research Publications, no. 1). Talent, Oregon: Eastern School, 1986.

Rivière, Jean N. Kalachakra: initiation tantrique du Dalaï Lama. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont, 1985.

Roerich, Nicholas. Shambhala: The Heart of Asia. New York: Roerich Museum Press, 1930.

Schuh, Dieter. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung. (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschlands. Supplementband 16). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973.

Scott, David Alan. "The Iranian Face of Buddhism," East and West, vol. 41, nos. 1-4 (December 1991), 43-78.

Sopa, Geshe Lhundub; Jackson, Roger; and Newman, John. The Wheel of Time, The Kalachakra in Context. Madison, Wisconsin: Deer Park Books, 1985.

Sparham, Gareth. An Explanation of Ethical Standards in Secret Mantra Called "Fruit Cluster of Accomplishments." Unpublished manuscript.

Tatz, Mark (transl.). Asanga's Chapter of Morality with the Commentary of Tsong-kha-pa. Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1986.

Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama and Hopkins, Jeffrey. The Kalachakra Tantra: Rite of Initiation for the Stage of Generation. London: Wisdom Publications, 1985.

Wilson, Horace Hayman (transl.). The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition. London: Trübner & Co., 1864; reprinted, New York: Garland Publishing, 1981
Post Reply