Buddhism and Christianity

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

I have no doubt the Buddha believed in the soul, and the Dalai Lama also clearly believes in souls... I've also seen ancient Buddhist paintings that depict sixteen heavens and sixteen hells. Think Dante!

Namaste Dah-veeth,

thank you for the post.

do you think that you can find any Suttas or Sutras which assert the belief in a static, unchanging aspect of being? the texts will use the term "atman" if you are searching the Pali/Sanskrit versions.

metta,

~v

[marmalade]

I'm reading Robert M. Price's translations of pre-Nicene writings that influenced early Christianity. Price sees the early writings as being a mix of a variety of sects.

In case you don't know who Price is, he was a Baptist Preacher who is now an Episcopelian. He is very critical of much of Christianity. He was a long-term member of the Jesus Seminar, and now is a member of the Jesus Project. He joined the Jesus Seminar believing in a historical Christ, but no longer thinks that there is any evidence for it. He interprets from a variety of perspectives including looking at mythical parallels.

Amazon.com: The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts: Books: Robert M. Price

He has an introduction for each text. I saw something that relates to this thread in his intro to 'The Preaching of John' which is a part of 'Acts of John'. He explains all of the types of Docetism that were found in the early texts to give comparison to the text at hand. The part I quote here follows right after this comparison(pp 720-721).

But sure the most radical and thoroughgoing version of doctism is that presented in the Preaching of John, whereby the physical presence of Jesus on earth was entirely a shadow play. His divine presence might assume any chosen form from insubstantiality to steely invulnerability. He might take on various bodily shapes, even appearing differently to different observers simultaneously.

This kind of docetism is not restricted to /Crhistianity. It prevailed as the normative understanding of Buddhism in the form of the Trikaya doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha. All Buddhas are cosmic entities, ultimately sharing the ultimate reality of the Dharmakaya(truth body) but differentiated as distinct celestial personae(Amitabha, Dipankara Gotama, Maitreya, Manjushri) in a heavely dimension, the Samboghkaya(glory body, like the Son enthroned at the right hand of the Father). In addition, the Nirmankaya(transformation body) is the visible form circulating among mortals on earth. The average person looks at the Buddha and sees but a fellow human being, but the spiritual adept beholds the marks of the superman including towering height, glowing skin, long earlobes, a tuft of hair between the yees marking the open third eye, and a topknot of hair marking the active crown chakra. The point is the same in the gospel Transfiguration narratives when the elite three disciples see Jesus in his true heavenly form. Ultra-Shi'ite Islam developed its own form of the belief, making Ali, the successor of the prophet Muhammad, an earthly manifestation of Allah, only apparently flesh and blood. One may wonder if docetism has not, after all, prevailed as well in popular Christianity where people find it hard to imagine Jesus needing to eat, defecate, have sex, or learn anything he did not already know.

As a note to 'The First Epistle of Peter' he has this to say:

J.D.M. Derret, The Bible and the Buddhists(Bornato in Franciacorta: Editrice Sardini, 2000), says the motif of a savior easing the torments of the damned in hell is a Buddhist theme, borrowed or developed independently over time but not originally Christian.

[Thomas]

Hi Marmalade —

Originally Posted by marmalade

I'm reading Robert M. Price's translations of pre-Nicene writings that influenced early Christianity. Price sees the early writings as being a mix of a variety of sects.

OK, so one man's opinion.

Originally Posted by marmalade

He was a long-term member of the Jesus Seminar, and now is a member of the Jesus Project. He joined the Jesus Seminar believing in a historical Christ, but no longer thinks that there is any evidence for it.

The method of the Jesus Seminar has been demonstrated to be deeply flawed. If he has moved to a position refuting the historical Jesus absolutely, then he's occupying a profoundly 'fundamentalist' position, on very infirm ground. The evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is actually growing ... even secular sociological theory supports it.

Originally Posted by marmalade

He interprets from a variety of perspectives including looking at mythical parallels.

This ground has been well trodden and well argued. Check out Bultmann, he's the 'godfather' of Price's philosophical position. Then look at Benoit's response, which highlights three fundamental assumptions of the Bultmann position. I would suggest the same argument can be deployed against Price.

Originally Posted by marmalade

... I saw something that relates to this thread in his intro to 'The Preaching of John' which is a part of 'Acts of John'. He explains all of the types of Docetism that were found in the early texts to give comparison to the text at hand.

That's funny. I'm just finalised an essay that argues that the First Epistle of John set out to refute a nascent Doceticsm that threatened the community.

Originally Posted by marmalade

"whereby the physical presence of Jesus on earth was entirely a shadow play."

RAOFL — sorry, but quite how he comes to that conclusion escapes me. I'd like to see how he dismisses 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood" — the reference to blood being an explicit refutation of any Docetic doctrine.

Historical evidence points to John's Gospel refuting the neoDocetism of Cerinthus, and First John refuting the same error in the community that prioritised the Divinity of Jesus over His humanity.

Read Price by all means, but please acknowledge he is an extremist, and please read others, so that you might get a balanced view from which to draw your own conclusions.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Greetings Vajradhara —

Thanks for the links. I will read and consider, so please allow that my response might not be immediate.

pax tecum,

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

I have no doubt the Buddha believed in the soul, and the Dalai Lama also clearly believes in souls... I've also seen ancient Buddhist paintings that depict sixteen heavens and sixteen hells. Think Dante!

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

I have no doubt the Buddha believed in the soul

I believe in Buddhism "soul" is considered an artifact of faulty thinking, that is, an illusion. That's seems quite different from the Christian notion of differentiated spiritual substance whose immortality is ensured by salvation. An illusion almost by definition has no substance and no permanence.

In Buddhism, there is also no transcendent supreme Being who offers salvation and who is seen as an object of worship.

I see Buddhism as a nontheistic metaphysics with a humanistic aspect for ethics.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Dah-veeth,

thank you for the post.

do you think that you can find any Suttas or Sutras which assert the belief in a static, unchanging aspect of being? the texts will use the term "atman" if you are searching the Pali/Sanskrit versions.

metta,

~v

Are there any Buddhist concepts whereby something akin to "self" or "soul" is conceived of as a verb, adjective, or adverb, rather than as a noun? {To address the attachment to "static, unchanging?"}

[bob x]

There is analogy in "The Questions of King Menander" (Greek-descended king of Bactria, a successor kingdom to Alexander's realm in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan; his coins are bilingual, with Athena and the owl on the front inscribed Basileou Menandrou Dikaiou in Greek letters and the eight-spoked wheel on the back inscribed Maharajasa Minindrasa Dharmikasa in Sanskrit script). His teacher analogizes the soul to a propagating fire: none of the individual tongues of flame have much endurance, nor can it be truly said that it remains the "same" fire, yet there is a clear chain of causation.

[Nick the Pilot]

Seattle Gal,

Buddhists do not believe in a soul or Atman, but they believe in something called a "stream of consciousness." To me, it is the same thing by different names.

There is also the issue of the impermanence of the soul or Atman. I believe Buddha said he did not believe in a permanent soul or Atman (which is where I think all of the confusion comes from). Christians see a soul as being eternal, while Buddhists do not see a "stream of consciousness" as being eternal. (I am 100% with the Buddhists on this one. I do not think any aspect of the human condition can be described as eternal, and Buddhists agree.)

[marmalade]

Originally Posted by Thomas

OK, so one man's opinion.

Well, I thought it was kind of obvious that I was quoting one person. This one person happens to be a mainstream Biblical scholar. However, he is far from being the only one who holds such a view.

The method of the Jesus Seminar has been demonstrated to be deeply flawed.

Yes, it has been demonstrated as deeply flawed in the minds of apologists. The Jesus Seminar even started with the assumption that Jesus existed before even considering the evidence. They had a bias, but it wasn't the one you're implying. When Price joined the Jesus Seminar, he believed in an historical Christ.

If he has moved to a position refuting the historical Jesus absolutely, then he's occupying a profoundly 'fundamentalist' position, on very infirm ground.

Price is the very opposite of fundamentalist. He admits that there are many possible interpretations. In fact, this is the central tenet of his theorizing. Only if someone believes the evidence is cut and dry, can they be deemed fundamentalist. Price was a Baptist preacher and still is an Episcopelian. He is critical of Christianity, but doesn't dismiss it all out of hand. Is that the attitude of a fundamentalist and an extremist?

The evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is actually growing ... even secular sociological theory supports it.

I'd be curious in what way you believe it to be increasing. Have more ancient texts been unearthed? Have they finally found non-Christian records that refer to Jesus?

In the time I've spent following discussions about historicity, I haven't yet seen any clear evidence. But I must admit I don't have much need to find any as it has no relation to my personal beliefs... for or against. I just figure that if evidence truly existed, then there wouldn't be all of the endless nitpicking over small details.

This ground has been well trodden and well argued. Check out Bultmann, he's the 'godfather' of Price's philosophical position. Then look at Benoit's response, which highlights three fundamental assumptions of the Bultmann position. I would suggest the same argument can be deployed against Price.

I've never read Bultmann nor Benoit, but I have seen Price mention Bultmann. What philosophical position are you claiming Price to have? I did a search for Benoit, but I couldn't find Benoit mentioning about three fundamental assumptions. Could you provide a quote or a link?

That's funny. I'm just finalised an essay that argues that the First Epistle of John set out to refute a nascent Doceticsm that threatened the community.

Price, p738
"It was appreciated and edited by both sides in the controversy, the result being that what we have is a contradictory, composite document."

RAOFL — sorry, but quite how he comes to that conclusion escapes me.

If you already have your mind made up, then its not surprising that Price's view which you disagree with 'escapes' you. It would be easy for you to discover how he came to that conclusion. You could read his book. He also has several books worth of writing on the web.

I'd like to see how he dismisses 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood" — the reference to blood being an explicit refutation of any Docetic doctrine.

Here is his translation:
"This is the one who appears with water and blood, Jesus-Christ. not merely with water, but with water and blood."

His note to this:
"John19:34. This is a refutation of docetism even though one who "bled" water might seem to be a god masquerading in human form. Our author insists Jesus was really human."

The next sentence in his translation:
"And we know this from the Spirit because the Spirit is the truth."

The note to it:
"John 15:26, 12-14. Here we learn that the piercing of the heart of Jesus in John 19:34 is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich. Hence the appeal here to the Spirit's veracious character as corroboration. This should make us think twice before taking 1 John 1:1-3 as eyewitness memory."

Historical evidence points to John's Gospel refuting the neoDocetism of Cerinthus, and First John refuting the same error in the community that prioritised the Divinity of Jesus over His humanity.

Price favors the view that the docetists and non-docetists were competing. He isn't arguing that 1 John is entirely or even primarily docetist. He is only arguing that docetism(and other gnostic beliefs) are mixed in. I could give you a few more of his notes about this if you'd like.

Read Price by all means, but please acknowledge he is an extremist, and please read others, so that you might get a balanced view from which to draw your own conclusions.

Your attitude of condescension is neither needed nor desired. I have read various scholars besides him, and certainly there are many more I could read. I come at biblical scholarship from numerous angles. I've followed many threads and I've seen all the various kinds of arguments. My views are fairly balanced, but that is besides the point. Many(possibly most) people interested in biblical studies(scholars included) don't have balanced views.

[Dah-veeth]

Has anyone here heard of Pure Land Buddhism? They believe in Paradise.

[Thomas]

Hi Marmalade —

If I've offended, mea culpa.

[QUOTE=marmalade;137554]Well, I thought it was kind of obvious that I was quoting one person.[QUOTE=marmalade;137554]
I assumed that as you only quoted one view, that was the view your were espousing.

Originally Posted by marmalade

This one person happens to be a mainstream Biblical scholar. However, he is far from being the only one who holds such a view.

I'm sure.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Yes, it has been demonstrated as deeply flawed in the minds of apologists. The Jesus Seminar even started with the assumption that Jesus existed before even considering the evidence. They had a bias, but it wasn't the one you're implying. When Price joined the Jesus Seminar, he believed in an historical Christ.

The presupposition of the Jesus Seminar was that Jesus existed as an historical reality, but that He was not, nor did he proclaim Himself to be, the Son of God. That was a process of mythologisation.

The seminar then decided which bits of Scripture were authentic, and which were later interpolations, on the basis of what each individual member deemed credible. As there was an a priori supposition by the members that Jesus was a man but not God, and that Scripture was the mythologisation of a dead Jewish prophet ... the outcome was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the flaw, in my mind. Individual credulity is no basis for anything.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Price is the very opposite of fundamentalist. He admits that there are many possible interpretations. In fact, this is the central tenet of his theorizing. Only if someone believes the evidence is cut and dry, can they be deemed fundamentalist. Price was a Baptist preacher and still is an Episcopelian. He is critical of Christianity, but doesn't dismiss it all out of hand. Is that the attitude of a fundamentalist and an extremist?

Sorry. I was going from the content of your post.

Originally Posted by marmalade

I'd be curious in what way you believe it to be increasing. Have more ancient texts been unearthed? Have they finally found non-Christian records that refer to Jesus?

There are three, although Philo of Alexandria is always disputed. The weight of evidence is in social theory and the spread of ideas.

Originally Posted by marmalade

I've never read Bultmann nor Benoit, but I have seen Price mention Bultmann. What philosophical position are you claiming Price to have? I did a search for Benoit, but I couldn't find Benoit mentioning about three fundamental assumptions. Could you provide a quote or a link?

Bultmann argued that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who was mythologised by his followers. He even suggested that Jesus might never have actually existed, but is a kind of psychic entity that embodies the religious aspirations of man.

Pierre Benoit argued that:
1 - Because a thing seems incredible to someone does not make it impossible. Bultmann argued on this premise, he relied on his reputation to asseret thit if something was incredulous to him, then it could not be the case.
2 - Bultmann argued that because text A is a myth, and there are certain similarities between text A and text B, text B is therefore also a myth. Benoit demonstrated that this is patently not always the case.
3 - Benoit argued that it is highly unlikely that a disparate body of people could give rise to a teaching so thorough, a mythology so complex, in a matter of a few years, in the face of eye witnesses, and that all those involved in the fabrication of the myth were quite happy to die for the myth they were busy inventing.
Great movements in history invariably focus on one individual — in the same way that great art is rarely produced by a committee.

Originally Posted by marmalade

"It was appreciated and edited by both sides in the controversy, the result being that what we have is a contradictory, composite document."

Contradictory if one has already precluded certain aspects of Christian doctrine. The document is not contradictory to me, nor to many scholars, although it is not without difficulty. But a composite of opposing factions seems very hard to support ...

Originally Posted by marmalade

If you already have your mind made up, then its not surprising that Price's view which you disagree with 'escapes' you. It would be easy for you to discover how he came to that conclusion. You could read his book. He also has several books worth of writing on the web.

Believe me, since I have started my studies, I have had many assumptions and certainties blown away ...

[QUOTE=marmalade;137554]
"John19:34. This is a refutation of docetism even though one who "bled" water might seem to be a god masquerading in human form. Our author insists Jesus was really human."
Which author? the author of the Gospel and the Epistle both insist Jesus was fully God, fully man. Neither party in the opposite factions of the Epistle dispute doubted that, nor did either think Jesus was 'a god masquerading in human form' — this is eigesis, reading into the text what you want it to say.

Originally Posted by marmalade

"John 15:26, 12-14. Here we learn that the piercing of the heart of Jesus in John 19:34 is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich. Hence the appeal here to the Spirit's veracious character as corroboration. This should make us think twice before taking 1 John 1:1-3 as eyewitness memory."

Don't understand. John 15:26 is a reference to the Paraclete ... don't know what chapter '12-14' refers to ...

... but I see no indication that the piercing of Christ's side "is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich" ... perhaps you could explain how he gets to that?

Originally Posted by marmalade

He isn't arguing that 1 John is entirely or even primarily docetist. He is only arguing that docetism (and other gnostic beliefs) are mixed in. I could give you a few more of his notes about this if you'd like.

I can't see how a document can be written to refute docetism and gnostic beliefs, and then mix those ideas in ... even allowing for collective authorship, did no-one in the community say "this is full of contradictions?" — how was it ever accpeted by the Church?

Originally Posted by marmalade

Your attitude of condescension is neither needed nor desired.

It is not present, I'm sorry if you misread me that way.

Originally Posted by marmalade

I have read various scholars besides him, and certainly there are many more I could read. I come at biblical scholarship from numerous angles. I've followed many threads and I've seen all the various kinds of arguments. My views are fairly balanced, but that is besides the point. Many(possibly most) people interested in biblical studies(scholars included) don't have balanced views.

On balance, I find that lumps everyone in the same boat, which I don't think is fair, or the case.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

Has anyone here heard of Pure Land Buddhism? They believe in Paradise.

Indeed, and welcome.

I don't think it's an eternal paradise, more of a "staging post". There is/was a member here by the name of Tariki who I think is interested in Pure Land but I've not seen him around for a while.

s.

[marmalade]

I first want to say that I'm not defending Price. I just find him interesting. It doesn't matter to me if he is right in the same way it doesn't matter to me if the belief in a historical Jesus is wrong. My beliefs are based on my experience and not on the tentative conclusions based on complicated debating about ancient texts. I study this type of thing simply out of curiosity, and so I think about any theory as being one possibility amongst an endless number of other possibilities.

Also, I've only been studying Price over this past year. I'm no expert on his ideas.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The presupposition of the Jesus Seminar was that Jesus existed as an historical reality, but that He was not, nor did he proclaim Himself to be, the Son of God. That was a process of mythologisation.

They were looking for evidence. The only type of objective evidence one can find in ancient texts is historical. Theology is important, but it can't be proven objectively. They were a group of biblical scholars and not a contemporary council of Nicea. Anyways, if Jesus can't be proven historically, it doesn't matter what theology is claimed about him. Christians have traditionally used their belief in history as their justification for their beliefs, and the Jesus Seminar was testing whether this justification was justified.

Excluding divine visions, there is no other way to go about it. And even divine visions can tell us nothing about history.

I had never heard that they started with the premise that Jesus never proclaimed himself to be God. And I never heard that they started with a mythicist lense. From looking into it previously, I got the idea that Funk was into historicism and not mythicism. Where did you get this information from?

The seminar then decided which bits of Scripture were authentic, and which were later interpolations, on the basis of what each individual member deemed credible. As there was an a priori supposition by the members that Jesus was a man but not God, and that Scripture was the mythologisation of a dead Jewish prophet ... the outcome was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the flaw, in my mind. Individual credulity is no basis for anything.

They were just using the standards of modern science. If you disagree with modern science, take it up with the scientists. Its not the place of Biblical scholars to critically debate the validity of scientific knowledge and theory. Until the miracles in the Bible are proven scientifically, then historical scholars are limited by this constraint. To not be limited by this constraint is to step outside of Biblical scholarship and to step into Biblical theology.

Why should they accept supernatural claims simply because they were claimed? There is no more justification to accept the supernatural claims in the Bible than in any other ancient holy text. In normal life, when we speak of a person, we assume that they are human until proven otherwise. Why should we apply different standards to the Bible than we apply to our normal lives?

We have evidence that historical persons have been mythologized, but we have no evidence that God or gods have incarnated as humans. It may have happened, but we have no evidence. You're free to believe in this, but its not a commonly accepted assumption amongst scientists and historians. The belief in Jesus is basically a cultural belief. The belief in history and science is(mostly) cross-cultural. And science and history are more open to testing their own assumptions than religion traditionally has been.

I realize that somethings exist outside of science and history, and its important to distinguish these things. History isn't theology even if some theology is based on history interpreted according to theology. Belief in a historical hypothesis doesn't make it historically true. History is about evidence and belief requires no evidence or else it isn't belief.

There are three, although Philo of Alexandria is always disputed. The weight of evidence is in social theory and the spread of ideas.

What is this evidence? I'd never heard of it. This doesn't sound like it relates to historical evidence.

Bultmann argued that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who was mythologised by his followers. He even suggested that Jesus might never have actually existed, but is a kind of psychic entity that embodies the religious aspirations of man.

I was just reading Price claiming that Bultmann did believe in an historical Jesus, and he thought it crazy for someone to doubt it. Price also mentioned that several of Bultmann's students took up trying to demonstrate an historical Jesus. He was stating this because it was the main thing he disagreed with Bultmann about.

I did a search about Bultmann. As far as I could tell, it seems he believed that historical events such as the crucifixion were proved beyond any reasonable doubt, but he separated a historical Jesus from a spiritual Christ. The reason he did this was because he felt that theology couldn't be based on such bare facts of history. He seems to have believed that knowing Jesus existed tells us nothing about the actual character of the man. Considering how widely Jesus' character has been interpreted, I'd say Bultmann was correct.

You might be correct that he suggested somewhere that it was possible that Jesus didn't exist, but I couldn't find anything about it. My knowledge on Bultmann is limited. Do you remember where you saw Bultmann saying that Jesus might not have existed?

The important part, anyways, is about the mythicism interpretations. That is what influenced Price.

Pierre Benoit argued that:
1 - Because a thing seems incredible to someone does not make it impossible. Bultmann argued on this premise, he relied on his reputation to asseret thit if something was incredulous to him, then it could not be the case.

I agree with this. I've had experiences that I can't prove rationally. Even so, history is the act of seeking objective knowledge. Bultmann didn't argue against an historical Jesus, but only in using historical claims to justify theological beliefs. He wasn't relying just on his reputation. He was also relying on the reputation of modern science.

2 - Bultmann argued that because text A is a myth, and there are certain similarities between text A and text B, text B is therefore also a myth. Benoit demonstrated that this is patently not always the case.

True, its not always the case. I'd imagine that both Price and Bultmann would admit that. A single parallel isn't enough to claim borrowing, but the case becomes stronger as more parallels are determined.

Price argues using Ockham's Razor. If there are extensive parallels, then its simpler to accept this as an explanation... unless there is significant historical evidence to cause you to question it. On the other hand, a supernatural hypothesis demands strong evidence which isn't available in historical texts. Science can test something supernatural that is happening in the present such as testing the efficacy of prayer on healing, but the supernatural claims of ancient texts are largely outside of the domain of the hard sciences. The best that one can say rationally(ie without recourse to belief) is that they can neither be proved nor disproved.

Bultmann seemed to believe in both a historical Jesus and a mythical Christ, but separated the two. Maybe Bultmann felt that parallels proved it wasn't unique to Christianity and so wasn't useful for explaining a historical Jesus.

3 - Benoit argued that it is highly unlikely that a disparate body of people could give rise to a teaching so thorough, a mythology so complex, in a matter of a few years, in the face of eye witnesses, and that all those involved in the fabrication of the myth were quite happy to die for the myth they were busy inventing.

The Pagan parallels and Gnosticism existed before the common era, and so there was plenty of time for them to develop into Christianity. The eye witness testimony of early Christianity is pretty scanty and so we really don't know how it started. The people who believed in it didn't believe it was just a fabricated myth. That shows your modern bias. A docetist Christ was very real to the person who experienced him. If you think myth means a lie or a delusion, then I'd recommend you read some Joseph Campbell or Jung. For a contemprorary example, Tom Harpur is a Christian who bases his faith on a mythical Christ and he takes it very seriously.

As for martyrdom, Christians didn't invent it. Some of the Greek sects were known for being fearless about death. Embracing death courageously has nothing to do with whether your beliefs are based on historical savior figures.

Great movements in history invariably focus on one individual — in the same way that great art is rarely produced by a committee.

This is a modern bias once again. The ancient oral tradition was a communal process where myths were developed over many generations or even centuries. Various different religious sects influenced early Christianity, and I don't think that is disputed. There was no organized religion early on or not a single one anyways. Jesus may have been a composite character based on many different people combined with mythological borrowings. Of course, any single one of these early sects was probably only focused on one character... as you said. And it wouldn't have been until later on that they were combined. We need to separate the early sects from the later organized religion.

Contradictory if one has already precluded certain aspects of Christian doctrine. The document is not contradictory to me, nor to many scholars, although it is not without difficulty. But a composite of opposing factions seems very hard to support ...

My way of looking at is to try to see it objectively. It doesn't matter what I want to believe. If you start with an assumption, then you will interpret everything accordingly. I don't preclude anything, but neither do I assume anything. My only fundamental bias is that I trust my own experience which doesn't disallow questioning anything and everything including what beliefs by which I choose to interpret my experience. Idealistically, I try to study in order to question what I think I know instead of trying to prove what I want to know.

Originally Posted by marmalade

"John19:34. This is a refutation of docetism even though one who "bled" water might seem to be a god masquerading in human form. Our author insists Jesus was really human."
Which author? the author of the Gospel and the Epistle both insist Jesus was fully God, fully man. Neither party in the opposite factions of the Epistle dispute doubted that, nor did either think Jesus was 'a god masquerading in human form' — this is eigesis, reading into the text what you want it to say.

Am I confused? You and Price seem to be in agreement about this line. He is saying that the author of the 1 John intended to communicate that Jesus was physical. Price's comment about the water merely sounds like an aside and not anything he is projecting onto the author.

Don't understand. John 15:26 is a reference to the Paraclete ... don't know what chapter '12-14' refers to ...

I couldn't tell you what Price is referring to with the '12-14'.

... but I see no indication that the piercing of Christ's side "is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich" ... perhaps you could explain how he gets to that?

He seems to be interpreting that if the author claims to know it from the Spirit, then therefore the author isn't making a claim based on his or someone else's personal witness. Maybe he had a spiritual vision like Paul. Anyways, it doesn't seem to be something that you can base an historical argument on. If you are wondering who Anna Katherina Emmerich, then here is something that I found.

Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon by Robert M. Price
"We might compare the Prophet Smith’s literary labors, his inspired penmanship, with that of the Roman Catholic mystic Anna Katherina Emmerich, whose Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1862) is still avidly read by old-school Catholics curious to know the details of the gospel stories, as well as more stories, of Jesus. Edgar Cayce, too, supplied new gospel vignettes by mining the ostensible memories of previous lives from many for whom he gave psychic readings."

I can't see how a document can be written to refute docetism and gnostic beliefs, and then mix those ideas in ... even allowing for collective authorship, did no-one in the community say "this is full of contradictions?" — how was it ever accpeted by the Church?

My sense is that Price was saying that the original was anti-docetist. With time, more than one version developed. There are plenty of examples of texts being altered from their original meaning. Price argues that maybe someone then combined the various versions because they didn't know what was original and didn't want to leave out anything. Its just a theory, but Price felt that this best explains the seeming contradictions that he observed.

Why did the church accept it? Quite possibly it was accepted because it was already too widely known, and the hints of docetism are easy enough to interpret away. The same question could be asked about much of the Pauline writings which were accepted because they were popular.

[Thomas]

Hi Marmalade —

Let me say I'm not attacking Price, nor indeed you, but I am trying to highlight certain philosophical presuppostitions that often pass without comment in these matters. The one lesson i have learnt is to keep hunting back, to find out what formed the view or mind being presented.

Originally Posted by marmalade

They were looking for evidence.

That's precisely my point. There isn't any, outside of the texts themselves, which they've already judged and passed their opinion. In the absence of evidence, and ignoring the only evidence they've got, what takes its place is 'well founded opinion'. The Jesus Seminar's method of deciding what were Jesus' authentic words, and what were later interpolations, via the pink or black ball vote, was founded solely on what the individual thought credible, or not. That's not historical, philosophical, or scientific. It's pure opinion and speculation.

If you ever get ten minutes, read "Fern Seeds and Elephants" by C.S.Lewis. He points out that in every critical review of his own work by his contemporaries, with regard to meaning, inspiration, source, etc ... was wrong. Not some, but every time ... in the absence of hard data (in this case, asking the author) the critic falls back on his own education, his own conclusions and his own reasoning, and what results is 'scholarship', but none the less a complete shot in the dark ... a guess.

I say the same of this whole 'quest for the Historical Jesus' — it's all guesswork, but it survives precisely because there is no hard evidence that points either way, so now an industry has grown up on finding every possible permutation ... and the subtext is, the more you can knock the church, the more you are likely to sell.

And none of it is strong enough to disprove or displace the texts, or the tradition.

Look at the founders of the movement. The scholars who founded the quest, Strauss and Reimarus, were absolutely founded in the belief that there is nothing one can call 'supernatural' — one was a deist, the other a pantheist — who worked from the principle that the Scriptures must be myths because what they describe cannot possibly be true.

So virulent was there anti-traditional message that Albert Schweitzer, who followed them, eventually disowned them, and made an honest decision – either accept what the tradition says, or walk away, but there can be no other answer more reliable. He stopped looking, and went off to help the sick.

Originally Posted by marmalade

The only type of objective evidence one can find in ancient texts is historical.

That assumes that the Gospels, for example, are not historical. That's what I mean, the only available data is ruled out, for no good reason other than one chooses not to believe they can be true.

Question: What if they are historically true?

Note: The fact that they do not agree or coincide on every point only, in many ways, points to them being genuine. No two witness statements are every the same, and those that are, are regarded with suspicion.

I knew an old 'Desert Rat' who told me stories of the actions he fought in. I then read the historians recounting his campaigns. You'd think they were of totally unrelated events ... the historians, were scholarly, and well-presented, with lots of 'facts' and 'detail' ... but all guesswork, all assumption ... and he laughed at some of the things they wrote.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Christians have traditionally used their belief in history as their justification for their beliefs, and the Jesus Seminar was testing whether this justification was justified.

I dispute that. I think the JS was saying what it believed, based on its own faith, the lens in which it examined the texts.

Originally Posted by marmalade

I had never heard that they started with the premise that Jesus never proclaimed himself to be God. And I never heard that they started with a mythicist lense. From looking into it previously, I got the idea that Funk was into historicism and not mythicism. Where did you get this information from?

You have to trace the 'Jesus Quest' from its roots in the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by marmalade

They were just using the standards of modern science.

I don't think so, because modern science rests on empirical data. As you say, there is none in this case, so the standard was what they regard as credible.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Until the miracles in the Bible are proven scientifically, then historical scholars are limited by this constraint. To not be limited by this constraint is to step outside of Biblical scholarship and to step into Biblical theology.

But to say miracles cannot happen is to step outside the limits of science. Science can say it's highly unlikely, but science cannot say they definitely do not happen. The Quest was founded on that belief (Strauss, Reimarus, Bultmann ... ).

Originally Posted by marmalade

Why should we apply different standards to the Bible than we apply to our normal lives?

Because the Bible, as any sacred text, is not an everyday event. Take a look at the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur on religious language, for example.

Quantum physics runs on different standards than our everyday lives. QP runs on different principles than those held by physics ... but we do not disbelieve QP.

Originally Posted by marmalade

We have evidence that historical persons have been mythologized, but we have no evidence that God or gods have incarnated as humans.

Only because you a prior discount the evidence. Because text A is a myth, text B must be a myth, too ... but that actually does not represent a proof, just an opinion ... so by such statements you preclude any chance of truth, either way.

Originally Posted by marmalade

He seems to have believed that knowing Jesus existed tells us nothing about the actual character of the man. Considering how widely Jesus' character has been interpreted, I'd say Bultmann was correct.

Has he read the Gospels, I wonder ... they seem pretty consistent. Oh, he's already assumed that they are mythology ... therefore ...

Originally Posted by marmalade

Do you remember where you saw Bultmann saying that Jesus might not have existed?

I'll see if I can trace it. he retracted, because his university thought that was taking things too far.

Originally Posted by marmalade

The important part, anyways, is about the mythicism interpretations. That is what influenced Price.

Exactly ... but that's an assumption.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Price argues using Ockham's Razor.

That would say the Gospels are true.

Originally Posted by marmalade

The Pagan parallels and Gnosticism existed before the common era, and so there was plenty of time for them to develop into Christianity.

But only in the last 50 years have we found out that what was always assumed to be gnostic influence on the Gospel of John was not that at all. The Dead Sea Scrolls altered all that.

Traditional biblical scholarship always argued a Hebrew foundation for John's theology, only the Historical Quest came up with this Hellenic mythologisation ... and now the evidence is there to make their assumptions very tenuous, and far from likely. Okkam's Razor suggests that John was Jewish, not Greek, in thought, education and language.

Originally Posted by marmalade

The eye witness testimony of early Christianity is pretty scanty and so we really don't know how it started.

That's all we've got, and we're busying explaining it away on less evidence than the texts themselves.

Take the Q source material — a total modern myth without a single shred of evidence, yet somehow acceptable because it solves a lot of problems for scholars.

When police 'bang someone up' because he must have done it ... there's an outcry, but in reality the preinciple is the same.

Originally Posted by marmalade

The people who believed in it didn't believe it was just a fabricated myth. That shows your modern bias. A docetist Christ was very real to the person who experienced him. If you think myth means a lie or a delusion, then I'd recommend you read some Joseph Campbell or Jung. For a contemprorary example, Tom Harpur is a Christian who bases his faith on a mythical Christ and he takes it very seriously.

What if none of it is myth?

What if it is witness, and error ... that's my point. The whole 'myth' thing is a modern interpolation without evidence, yet it seems to carry a serious amount of influence ... more than the possibility that it is true ... I don't think that's objective at all.

In short ... show me a 'proof' that any of it is a myth, that outweighs my 'proof' that the testimonies are authentic witness documents ... and I will capitulate.

But I think 'the myth of Christianity' is a modern invention.

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are there any Buddhist concepts whereby something akin to "self" or "soul" is conceived of as a verb, adjective, or adverb, rather than as a noun? {To address the attachment to "static, unchanging?"}

This doesn't really address your question, but might be worth mentioning....

There does seem to be a notion of enduring transcendental Self. Not sure how authentically "Buddhist" it is, though.

To what extent is Tathagatagarbha ideology in dispute? What is the status of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and Srimala Sutra? Are these considered authoritative?