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

[Secret Alias]

Why do you insist upon such strict parallels?

Because when comparing apples and oranges we have to first identify what is what. What is Christianity? My Christianity comes from Clement of Alexandria. That's whom I think is "Christianity" for me. And what do I see? Chronology.

When I look at the gospel there's a chronology. Whether it is the Marcionite gospel or the Catholic gospel. It's not just a "novel." There is an overarching "chronology" where Jesus's appearance fits. The chronology isn't superfluous. It's essential. As such it's not like all that you're citing here.

Christianity assumes that it's 6000 years from the Creation of the world. As such it can't be "myth." It isn't being proposed to exist in some "never never land." It's 6000 years. Times up. Here comes God.
Christianity assumes that Daniel's 490 years has been fulfilled with Jesus. How can it be "mythical"? Why would the gospel cite Daniel's seventy weeks in a myth that could happen at any time with someone who never existed as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesy?
Christianity assumes that "he was crucified under Pilate." How can that be reflective of a religion that was "made up." Why bring forward Pilate, a real person if the narrative was just a "novel." Why emphasize the "under Pilate-ness" if everyone was "really" think this was a myth.

It seems to me that these discussions have a conspiracy mind set about them. A nefarious inner circle of evil men made up a lie. Whether the Pentateuch or the gospel. Why so? Because the people promulgating the conspiracy don't like the Bible.

So this is my push back.

At the same time I see the earliest traditions see Jesus as a god who in some sense came into the world by extraordinary even supernatural circumstances. I see these are the twin poles of deciding whether or not Christianity was "historical" (which I think it was in some sense). I don't think an appeal to Buddhism is particularly relevant or helpful except for distracting us from keeping our eyes on what Christianity is.

[ABuddhist]

When I look at the gospel there's a chronology. Whether it is the Marcionite gospel or the Catholic gospel. It's not just a "novel." There is an overarching "chronology" where Jesus's appearance fits. The chronology isn't superfluous. It's essential. As such it's not like all that you're citing here.

Christianity assumes that it's 6000 years from the Creation of the world. As such it can't be "myth."
Christianity assumes that Daniel's 490 years has been fulfilled with Jesus. How can it be "mythical"?
Christianity assumes that "he was crucified under Pilate." How can that be reflective of a religion that was "made up."

All of the assumptions which you cite from Christianity, though, can be based upon false stories rather than accurate claims, although I see nothing wrong with the claim that Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

As for your dismissing my example of a Buddhist text based upon a chronology and talking about a mythical saviour, I think that you are moving the goalposts again.

[ABuddhist]

The chronology isn't superfluous. It's essential. As such it's not like all that you're citing here.

The chronology is also essential to the Kalacakra Tantra.

[Secret Alias]

Please show me this relevancy and it's similarity to early Christianity's year 6000 AM, 490 years from Daniel and "under Pilate" while maintaining that the messianic figure never existed.

[ABuddhist]

A nefarious inner circle of evil men made up a lie.

But such things keep happening in religion. Consider Mormonism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Yogi Bhajan's Sikhism, for example. All of them were based upon charismatic individuals who claimed, falsely, to have anciernt and true traditions which they had really just made up based upon other religions' ideas. The burden should be upon you to prove that the Gospel, which you claim was written by Marcion, was not based upon Marcion's imagination - albeit applied to a real crucified crminal - and was ased upon accurate sources. Otherwise the gospel cannot be trusted.

[ABuddhist]

Please show me this relevancy and it's similarity to early Christianity's year 6000 AM, 490 years from Daniel and "under Pilate" while maintaining that the messianic figure never existed.

Well, do you believe that there is another world named Shambhala and that it has a human king ruling within it? If not, then that figure never existed.

As for the chronology associated with the Kalacakra tantra, that is a complicated topic - but the source which I have quoted for you within this forum says that Chronology is important for it.

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.

Source: https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... kalachakra

[lclapshaw]

It seems to me that these discussions have a conspiracy mind set about them. A nefarious inner circle of evil men made up a lie. Whether the Pentateuch or the gospel. Why so? Because the people promulgating the conspiracy don't like the Bible.

Personally, I don't see a conspiracy, nefarious or otherwise, what I think I see is a thriving publishing market giving the reading public what it wants during that time and place. A rousing tragedy in an exotic (for most) location, full of pius and moral lessons, in a place all in the news.

At first anyway.