There was a Pentateuch in the Persian period

[ABuddhist]

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

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.

https://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Sutra-Revi ... 886439397/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddh%C4% ... ra#History

https://www.amazon.com/Flower-Adornment ... 93541335X/

https://www.amazon.com/Large-Sutra-Perf ... 390064112/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Pra ... S%C5%ABtra

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,

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:

https://chungtai.org.au/wp-content/uplo ... hagata.pdf

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]

We only use citations not links. Since the beginning.

[ABuddhist]

We only use citations not links. Since the beginning.

You are either lying or are misinformed. Here are two examples in which citataions and links are mixed together.

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

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

Furthermore, I did provide citations:

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]

We only use citations not links. Since the beginning.

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]

There is nothing there.

[ABuddhist]

There is nothing there.

What do you mean by that?

[Secret Alias]

Where is the evidence that Buddhism (a) had a developed chronology from the beginning of creation and (b) calculated the arrival of a "messiah figure" to that pre-existent chronology and then (c) this arrival involved a wholly fictitious person who's legacy was wholly made up. I see no evidence for this.

[ABuddhist]

Where is the evidence that Buddhism (a) had a developed chronology from the beginning of creation and (b) calculated the arrival of a "messiah figure" to that pre-existent chronology and then (c) this arrival involved a wholly fictitious person who's legacy was wholly made up. I see no evidence for this.

I never claimed that Buddhism had done such things (excepting in the marginal tradition associated with the Kalacakra Tantra - which I only mentioned in response to your insistance that I try to citre such parallels), nor was my argument based upon such parallels. Rather, my argument was based upon the fact that Mahayana Buddhist scriptures, as later fictional prose narratives about a real person, serve as possible parallels to prose gospels' narratives fictional narratives about a real Jesus. As a non-mythicist, this is what I believe.

And as a Buddhist, I believe that creation has no beginning; cf., the Brahmajala Sutta.