Using ChatGPT

[Secret Alias]

Russell Gmirkin's theory is a subject of academic debate and discussion among scholars in the fields of biblical studies and ancient Near Eastern history. While some scholars find his arguments convincing and plausible, others have criticized his methodology and conclusions.

Gmirkin's theory, which proposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) was largely modeled on the laws and institutions of the ancient Near Eastern kingdom of Achaemenid Persia, challenges the traditional view that the Pentateuch reflects a unique Hebrew cultural and religious identity.

While Gmirkin's theory has gained some attention and recognition within the academic community, it is not widely accepted as the consensus view among scholars. As with any theory or hypothesis, it is subject to ongoing evaluation, critique, and refinement based on further research and evidence.

[ABuddhist]

Russell Gmirkin's theory is a subject of academic debate and discussion among scholars in the fields of biblical studies and ancient Near Eastern history. While some scholars find his arguments convincing and plausible, others have criticized his methodology and conclusions.

Gmirkin's theory, which proposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) was largely modeled on the laws and institutions of the ancient Near Eastern kingdom of Achaemenid Persia, challenges the traditional view that the Pentateuch reflects a unique Hebrew cultural and religious identity.

While Gmirkin's theory has gained some attention and recognition within the academic community, it is not widely accepted as the consensus view among scholars. As with any theory or hypothesis, it is subject to ongoing evaluation, critique, and refinement based on further research and evidence.

How Ironic that you insist upon my providing citations to books or articles and claim that links to websites are not sufficient in order to support my claioms about Buddhism which hcan be easily verified by doing basic reading of a Mahayana Sutra or related literature even as you respond to the much more obscure issue of Gmirkin's reliability by citing a literal artificial intelligence!

Furthermore, even accepting your artificial intelligence's answer as accurate, it gives more credit to Gmirkin than you do by saying that, "some scholars find his arguments convincing and plausible".

[Peter Kirby]

This thread consolidates use of ChatGPT and similar language models with relation to Jewish texts and history.

[Secret Alias]

How Ironic that you insist upon my providing citations to books or articles

So you don't really have an argument. Just a bunch of links to general information about topics related to Buddhism.

[ABuddhist]

How Ironic that you insist upon my providing citations to books or articles

So you don't really have an argument. Just a bunch of links to general information about topics related to Buddhism.

You are either lying or revealing that you did not understand my purpose in writing.

This post

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.

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,

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:

Bakshi, S.R. Kashmir: History and People. 1998. p. 194

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
[/quote]

included more than links. Furthermore, it arose in response to your asking me to provide to you evidence in support for the following claims and argument which I made:

Ancient novels, in which fictional characters and situations took place in real historical settings, existed

Name me an ancient religion developed around a novel.

Why limit it to ancient religions? Mormonism is a religion based upon a novel which its followers think to be true. In the same way, the gospels were, I think, fictions in some sense which were believed to be true.

There's no evidence for any of this in antiquity. If there was you'd have brought it up by now.

There is, actually. The Bhagvad Gita is a narrative poem about events which did not happen which people turned into the basis for a type of religious practise which would later be lumped into Hinduism. Similarly, the Flower Garland Sutra, which is written in prose and contains what has been described as a novel, was the basis for a sect of Buddhism.

But you are being overly particular with your insistence that we provide proof from antiquity of another religion being based upon a novel. That proccess coulds have happened only once, leading to Christianity.

There is no equivalent in any of the sources you've witnessed to the overt historical interest of the gospel and the earliest Christian Church Father's.

How do you know this? Are you aware of the Buddhist literature, dating back over 1,000 years, dealing with Shakyamuni Buddha's life? Yet much of it was produced by Mahayana Buddhists based upon fundamentally fictional prose narratives - in other words, novels. The Flower Garland Sutra is only the longest and most impressive of them.

You may say that Shakyamuni Buddha was a historical figure, and Jesus was also a historical figure. But as a non-mythicist Buddhist, I would agree with you and say that whether Jesus was a historical figure is fundamentally separate from whether the gospels were not fundamentally not true.

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.

Furthermore, all of these Buddhist texts which I am citing, although interesting parellels to the possible creation of fictitious prose narratives about a real person which were and are believed by members or a religion to be true, are a distraction from the main controversy with Secret Alias's claims - namely, why we must be cautious about assuming that the gospels are true and were written by people who believed them to be true.

From these messages, it is obvious that I was arguing that Mahayana Buddhist Sutras in which fictitious deeds and teachings were attributed to a real person in prose or in prose and verse, are a useful and similarly ancient form of what I believe that the gospels were: fictitious deeds and teachings attributed to a real person. When you doubted that Mahayana Sutras are as old or as long or as prose-using as I was claiming, I provided to you links and other sources so that you could confirm for yourself that Mahayana are as old and as long and as prose-using as I was claiming. I can provide to you a citation about their being fictional also, if you want.

[Secret Alias]

But my point was the chronology in Christianity is different and doesn't exist anywhere else.

[ABuddhist]

But my point was the chronology in Christianity is different and doesn't exist anywhere else.

That is a point which is obvious and has no bearing upon the issue of how accurate the gospel(s) were/are - because people can devise fictitous or real stories and situate them along all manner of chronologies in order to make the events seem more significant.

[Secret Alias]

We can do anything. I once hired a contortionist from Las Vegas and later stumbled upon his sideline business of making videos of him sucking himself off. Never hired the guy again. But the point is yes we can set our minds to anything. But the real question is HAS IT EVER OCCURRED. Has anyone set up a religion entirely fixed to chronology and various chronologies (i.e. 6000 AM, 490 years from Daniel, and "under Pilate") under a scenario where none of the things described in the narrative were historical?

[ABuddhist]

Has anyone set up a religion entirely fixed to chronology and various chronologies (i.e. 6000 AM, 490 years from Daniel, and "under Pilate") under a scenario where none of the things described in the narrative were historical?

Yes! The Book of Mormon does exactly that. It keeps dating its events relative to Christ's birth.

[Secret Alias]

But Mormonism is a Christian sect. We should Manichaeanism as a separate religion from Christianity?