Was Jesus a Buddhist?

[Anonymous]

I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the subject to refute most of your quotes, but I would be interested in more evidence if you’d like to supply more. I assume that the scholars you quote have reasons for the dates they provide? Just a couple of notes on the dates I could find:

Rix wrote:

“We now know that Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the early second century (Mack, 1995, p. 45).”

I would like to hear the reasons for that. Scholars have been able to date the Acts partially based on what the text mentions and what it does not mention. There are several crucial first century events that anyone writing about early Christian history would have included had they already occurred: The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD), the death of Paul (about 66 AD), the death of Peter (about 64 AD), and the persecution of the Christians under Nero (beginning 64 AD). Events that it does mention include Paul being brought before Proconsul Gallio (Acts 18)(an inscription in Delphi dates Gallio’s time in office to around 52 AD), the High Priest Ananias (High Priest from 46-52 AD) making accusations against Paul (Acts 24), etc. These factors seem to indicate a dating of about 55-64 AD based purely on textual analysis. But I would be interested in alternative evidence.

Rix wrote:

The first [factor] was the evolution of a canon of New Testament writings. Although oral tradition continued to be important right up till the end of the second century, most traditions had found written form by its early decades…” (Johnson, 1976, p. 54)

This quote does not indicate that the gospels/epistles/acts were all written in the 2nd century, just that “most traditions have found written form by its [2nd century’s] early decades.”

Quote:

“What, then, are my reasons for putting Mark as 90 instead of, with most theologians, at about 70? (Wells, 1988, p. 107)

“140-150 AD is the most likely time for the writing of Mark’s Gospel – by Cerinthius.” (Humphreys, 2005, p. 188)

The quote indicates that the majority of scholars date Mark to 70 AD, but if either scholar has any reason to suggest a later date, I would be interested in it.

Quote:

“The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians… dates to about 200 C.E.” (Ehrman, 2006, p. 60)

Is Ehrman implying that Galatians was written in 200 or simply that the earliest full copy dates back to 200? This quote does not seem to imply late authorship, but merely late dating of the most complete copy.

Quote:

None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 A.D.

This is false. Note the following: “J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11): The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel [Matthew] are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110.”

Quote:

Archeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 AD (Funk & Hoover, 1993, p. 9).

As many apologists are quick to point out, there are many texts that we assume to be accurate which have a relatively HUGE gap between the copy and the original. The fact that we have a copy of the gospel of John dating back to 125 AD is quite astounding. Here are some examples:

-Plato (written 427-347 B.C.) – Earliest copy = 900 A.D. (A difference of 1200 yrs) (# of copies = 7)

-Herodotus (written 480-425 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 900 A.D. (A difference of 1300 yrs) (# of copies =

-Caesar (written 100-44 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 900 A.D. (A difference of 1000 yrs) (# of copies = 10)

-Aristotle (written 384-322 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 1100 A.D. (A difference of 1400 yrs) (# of copies = 49)

-Homer (Iliad) (written 900 B.C.) -Earliest copy = 400 B.C. (A difference of 500 yrs) (# of copies = 643)

-New Testament (written 50-100 AD) -Earliest copy = 130 AD (A difference of less than 100 yrs) (# of copies = 5600)

Of course, it would be beneficial to check these figures rather than take the apologists’ word for it. I do not have time for that right now, but if you find any evidence to the contrary I would be interested in hearing it. I plan to do some fact-checking on this later. Needless to say though that if it’s correct, the differences are astounding. Suddenly an earliest copy of 125 AD doesn’t look so bad!

Rix wrote:

As I studied this over a few years, I did find scholars that had very conflicting conclusions on most of these issues, but most leaned this way…and again, I found that most of the “Christian agenda” sources used Christian scholars.

But, I’m the first to admit that I could be wrong…just has been my experience so far…

I appreciate the openness, Rix. I too would be willing to admit it if I felt I was wrong. I certainly don’t have a “Christian agenda” – just trying to understand truth wherever it comes from, like yourself. I just happen to be as suspicious about a “New Age” agenda (at least in the case of the Jesus-was-a-pagan-legend theory) as you are of a Christian one. Just as Christian scholars may feel duty-bound to protect their faith, many other scholars are after the next theory that will shake up the world and give them notoriety and book sales. I don’t think we should dismiss either group on the basis of their convictions, but rather, follow the facts. As you said earlier, I’m not here with the assumption that I have the facts and everyone else has to follow them – it works both ways and I will “follow the facts” that you present as well!

Ah, religious dialogue. Is there a greater joy?

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

But, I’m the first to admit that I could be wrong…just has been my experience so far…

Rix, are you saying that the letters of Paul really did come (in the record) first? Or are you saying something else? Can you say in a sentence or two what you meant by your last post?

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Rix wrote:

But, I’m the first to admit that I could be wrong…just has been my experience so far…

Rix, are you saying that the letters of Paul really did come (in the record) first? Or are you saying something else? Can you say in a sentence or two what you meant by your last post?

Yes (was that a sentence or less? 😆 ).

Ehrman’s books that I read, and “The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” by Maccoby go into details about how Paul (or his own disciples) quite possibly could have basically written the NT Gospels according to Paul’s version of Jesus’ life and teachings. Again, if I had the time or energy I’d love to read more books about it, but it seems you really have to study the many different theories about it all — that darned era of the book burnings makes it all very difficult to prove beyond doubt.

But it’s fun to play with it all…

[Anonymous]

Thanks for lending us your memory.

So Ehrman might say Paul’s mythology of Jesus totally won out over other Jesus mythoses? Or would he more likely say that there were no other Jesus mythoses because there was no Jesus until Paul envisioned him?

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Thanks for lending us your memory.

So Ehrman might say Paul’s mythology of Jesus totally won out over other Jesus mythoses? Or would he more likely say that there were no other Jesus mythoses because there was no Jesus until Paul envisioned him?

Yes. Ehrman is very specific about the various “Christianities” in the first few centuries. One can imagine how that would happen, with no formal education or much written that was available to the majority of the people…the ole ‘send the story around the circle and see what comes back’ principle. The letters of Paul were written from about 50 – 60 AD, and the first gospel (Mark) was composed (likely taken from “Q,”) around 70 AD. Many scholars contend that the actual authors were followers of Paul and wrote what he taught them.

There are some that claim Jesus never existed, but most scholar/historians I’ve read believe the evidence is compelling that he did; of course his “message” ranges from Gnosticism to Pauline, with the holidays and attributed miracles coming from Pagan mythology.

Sure makes for some great celebrations today, though!

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

Yes. Many scholars contend that the actual authors were followers of Paul and wrote what he taught them.

So Ehrman suggests the second is the case, then. The entire Jesus mythos began with Paul’s vision. Is that correct?

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Rix wrote:

Yes. Many scholars contend that the actual authors were followers of Paul and wrote what he taught them.

So Ehrman suggests the second is the case, then. The entire Jesus mythos began with Paul’s vision. Is that correct?

Somewhat…Paul was familiar with the stories about Jesus — he had contact and associations with some of the disciples; so it might be fair to say that he had a perception of Jesus’ life, then had his vision/dream that converted him and motivated him to begin his ministry.

But most scholars I’ve read agree that the Christianity we have today is basically Pauline, with previous Pagan myths added in.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

But most scholars I’ve read agree that the Christianity we have today is basically Pauline, with previous Pagan myths added in.

Oh. That’s actually approximately what I tend to believe. Yes, there was a Jesus. No, we don’t know exactly what he did or didn’t do or say. No, nothing in the Bible is authoritative due to being the actual red letter words of Jesus. If there is anything authoritative, it’s because it speaks as one having authority, and not as the scribes. And because holy ones (saints) from all religions, places, and times agree.

Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, I believe the words of Luke’s Jesus, not because they were spoken by Jesus, but because I (and you and our sisters and brothers) deeply recognize them as true.

[Anonymous]

Buddhists have cosmological mythologies of eternal matter, multiple universes, hierarchies of consciousness(spirits), attaining godliness and absolute values pertaining to the Sermon on the Mount.

I’ve been getting into Buddhism as a philosophy recently. It is very fascinating. A jewish friend of mine stated that Christ’s teachings were misinterpreted over the years, and that he was a Buddha himself. Makes sense to me, there have been so few truly enlightened teachers in this world, I think it is a harm to humanity to simply choose only one when there is so much wisdom to be shared.

One of my favorite tenets of Buddhist thoughts is that one that chooses to ignore empirical evidence about a certain subject is deemed unworthy to participate in a discussion regarding that subject. Buddhists are bound by reason and thought, and that the truth requires self-affirmation. I really love the openness of their theology. Jesus, to me, can certainly seen as Buddhist.

[Anonymous]

I like the idea that Jesus was a Buddha. Just as Christians may call Jesus Christ (or Jesus the Anointed), Buddhists may call Gautama Buddha (or Gautama the Enlightened).

[Anonymous]

I hope it’s ok to still post on this. Mapleleaf referred me here & I love this thread! While, I agree, truth is relative & often personal, there are universal spiritual truths & I think Jesus & Buddha both found & taught them.

Just these last 4 months, my perspective has changed so much! Spiritual searching, NOM, friends & a book, “Putting on the Mind of Christ” (by Jim Marion) all contributed. This book is about how Christ was not Jesus’ last name…& how “Christ” consciousness is what Jesus had & probably Buddha & others, as well & how we can all achieve it.

When the Pharisees asked about when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus answered, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” I also wondered how I could have a realtionship with Jesus, when I don’t pray to him, & a relationship is only as good as its communication. Jesus also, when called, “Good Master” corrected him & said there is none good, but God.

Still, I was taught that a requirement for heaven, is to believe in Jesus Christ, so I had never imagined that my belief in Jesus as my Lord & Savior could hinder my spiritual progress. Marion wrote, “By putting Jesus on an unreachable pedestal so that others such as Buddha & Muhammad can’t get near him (that is, by understanding Jesus only as divine & the others only as human), we also prevent ourselves from getting near Jesus. We set up a major obstacle to our realization of Christ Counsciousness & our own entrance into the Kingdom.”

[Anonymous]

Great thoughts, Featherina. I think you would also enjoy reading Eckhart Tolle’s books. He refers a lot to the sayings attributed to Jesus but reframes them in a Buddhist / enlightenment view. It’s a very fresh take.

[Anonymous]

Featherina, one of the things I love MOST about “pure Mormonism” is that it actually doesn’t put Jesus on a pedestal.

Seriously, if you think about it, the whole idea that we should strive to be Christ-like and that our ultimate ideal is to become like God / gods really destroys the conceptual “gulf of separation” that exists in the rest of Christianity – and even in most of the rest of religion at large. When I look at “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof”, it is exactly this idea (clinging to an unreachable, unattainable God) that I see as its center.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read this whole thread, so forgive me for butting in like this.

The short answer is “no, Jesus was not a Buddhist.”

Don’t be completely deceived by the similarities, there are in fact as many differences, and the one lot can’t exist without the other.

Take for example, Matthew 6:7 “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions”. I believe this to be something Jesus probably said, but it flies directly in the face of the endless mantras of Buddhism.

I have been interested in Buddhism for a while, although I have never wanted to become a full blown Buddhist.

In the case of the two religions, I would suggest that both of them have been heavily influenced by a common cultural milieu, which would be the spirituality of the Middle East, i.e. that area lying between Greece and India, and Central Asia. There has been some Buddhist influence on early Christian thought, but it is by no means a one way traffic. Nestorian Christianity in Central Asia appears to have influenced Buddhism in the region, including that of Tibet.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Hawkgirl-

That’s funny that you mentioned Eckhart Tolle because a friend of mine recently recommended “The Power of Now” too. Maybe I need to take a hint! (- or maybe you’re her. Hm…Did we once have a (teen) girls night & got raided by the boys with our oatmeal green facial masks on? – just checking )

Ray –

Wow! I never thought of that – but that’s true! – We are taught to worship & pray to God, not Jesus – only in His name (which always confused me). What do you mean, “pure Mormonism”? Are you referring to beliefs & teachings of Joseph Smith that are no longer part of the church today (besides polygamy etc.). I do think he was spiritually inspired at times. But it seems that Jesus (as Lord & Savior) was & is central to the gospel & the name of our church. I’m curious what I may have been missing in Mormonism.

[Author]

Posts