Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:42 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:18 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
In my Buddhism class today, we discussed Buddha's birth. His mother was impregnated, in her side, by a white elephant (humm... Sounds like the Holy Spirit in a way, because a white elephant is suppose to be pure and a symbol of purity). Later she gave birth out of her side. Immediately he stood up and announced he was going to be the next Buddha (some baby if he could stand that fast). His mother died 5 days later. :roll:

Anyway, he lives high on the hog for a while and then decided that wasn't getting him enlightenment, so he went on a "4 fold" journey and saw 1. old age, 2. sickness, 3. death, and 4. then met a lonely old sage/herment.

After that he went on his rice diet, that didn't work, but a woman who thought he was a god started feeding him. Became enlightened. Then he preached sermons with his final one being where he laid down, preached, and then died, never to be reincarnated again. Almost like a crucificion, only not quite so morbid.

The birth story is definitely a virgin birth story, though.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Yes, St. Jerome made the same conclusion in the fifth century, admitting against interest and remarking that the Buddhist virgin-birth had been "passed down with authority." I've discussed this subject elsewhere, of course.

Naturally, because Jerome's comments came centuries into the common era, it is claimed that the Buddhists were influenced by the Christians. According to Christian apologists, there's never any influence on Christianity by Paganism. A completely absurd premise, of course, revealing the weakness of their overall argument.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:41 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
Acharya wrote:
Naturally, because Jerome's comments came centuries into the common era, it is claimed that the Buddhists were influenced by the Christians. According to Christian apologists, there's never any influence on Christianity by Paganism. A completely absurd premise, of course, revealing the weakness of their overall argument.


Quite true, esp since Buddhism is older than Christianity and I would dare to say the story of the Buddha Virgin Birth is much older, therefore there is no way, Xians influence it, but rather Buddhism influenced Xianity.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:44 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
Here's another Acharya hit the mark on with Buddha. I'm not sure if I should start another thread or not, since it is a new subject, but contrary to my son's opinion, the Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha, does have the Bodhisattva (prior to becoming Buddha) as a Sun god. It is written in metaphorical terms, but he is referred to as the sun in "Birth of the Holy One" verse 69:

Quote:
For he will give up the kingdom in his indifference to worldly pleasures, and, through bitter struggles grasping the final truth, he will shine forth as a sun of knowledge in the world to dispel the darkness of delusion.


Prior to that in verse 11-13:

Quote:
When in due course he had issued from the womb, he appeared as if he had descended from the sky, for he did not come into the world through the portal of life; and since he had purified his being through many aeons, he was born not ignorant but fully conscious.

With his lustre and steadfastness he appeared like the young sun come down to earth, and despite this his dazzling brilliance, when gazed at, he held all eyes like the moon.

For with the glowing radiance of his limbs he eclipsed, like the sun, the radiance of the lamps, and, beauteous with the hue of precious gold, he illlumined all the quarters of space.


Seven next becomes a the next focal point in verse 14 and in 15 the number 4, and also notice the word lion, sometimes used as metaphor for the sun in some stories:

Quote:
He who was like the constellation of the Seven Seers walked seven steps with such firmness that the feet were lifted up unwavering and straight and that the strides were long and set down firmly.

And looking to the four quarters with the bearing of a lion, he uttered a speech proclaiming the truth: "I am born for Enlightenment for the good of the world; this is my last birth in the world of phenomena."


I'm guessing that this would be his mother breast feeding him in verse 16 (mind you, she dies 5 days later):

Quote:
Two streams of water, clear as the rays of the moon and having the virtue, one of heat, one of cold, poured forth from the sky and fell on his gracious head to give his body refreshment by their contact.


Verse 18 is a dead give away (the dwellers are the other lower gods giving the future Buddha revernce, confirmed by the prof of the class):

Quote:
The dwellers in heaven, themselves remaining invisible, help up in the sky a white umbrella, and, bowing their heads in obeisance before his majesty, muttered the highest blessings that he might obtain Enlightenment.


Definitely talking about his mother in verse 29:

Quote:
The queen was filled with fear and joy, like a stream of hot and cold water mixed, because the power of her son was other than human on the one hand, and because she had a mother's natural weakness on the other.


Mind you, before all of this, she conceived in a dream (just as Acharya said in S of G p 303) where an elephant entered her side with no pain. Maya was (end of verse 5)
Quote:
being in her purity free from weariness, sorrow, and illusion, she set her mind on the sin-free forest.
Obviously a virgin.

Need I continue? So his mother was not only a virgin, had a virgin birth, but she was also the moon (from what I can tell) and Buddha the sun and all the gods were constellation celebrating the birth. Everything she said is all there in the first chapter of The Acts of Buddha.

Seems to me, Acharya hit the nail on the head again. :) Any questions?

We could almost make this a sticky in case anyone wanted to dispute the point. :lol: I didn't have to try very had to find this one.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:05 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 20
Mriana wrote:
In my Buddhism class today, we discussed Buddha's birth. His mother was impregnated, in her side, by a white elephant (humm... Sounds like the Holy Spirit in a way, because a white elephant is suppose to be pure and a symbol of purity). Later she gave birth out of her side. Immediately he stood up and announced he was going to be the next Buddha (some baby if he could stand that fast). His mother died 5 days later. :roll:

Anyway, he lives high on the hog for a while and then decided that wasn't getting him enlightenment, so he went on a "4 fold" journey and saw 1. old age, 2. sickness, 3. death, and 4. then met a lonely old sage/herment.

After that he went on his rice diet, that didn't work, but a woman who thought he was a god started feeding him. Became enlightened. Then he preached sermons with his final one being where he laid down, preached, and then died, never to be reincarnated again. Almost like a crucificion, only not quite so morbid.

The birth story is definitely a virgin birth story, though.


The stories to Buddha were added 500-1500 years after his life. There is no early testimony for these stories. And scholars agree that Buddhsim stole its ideas about the birth of Buddha from Christianity. Buddha's mother was married before he was born so she was no virgin.

_________________
Acquisition of spiritual knowledge without purification of the heart is the theology of demons --St. Maximos the Confessor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:09 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 20
Mriana wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Naturally, because Jerome's comments came centuries into the common era, it is claimed that the Buddhists were influenced by the Christians. According to Christian apologists, there's never any influence on Christianity by Paganism. A completely absurd premise, of course, revealing the weakness of their overall argument.


Quite true, esp since Buddhism is older than Christianity and I would dare to say the story of the Buddha Virgin Birth is much older, therefore there is no way, Xians influence it, but rather Buddhism influenced Xianity.


You have it all wrong and backwards. The stories of Buddha's birth were added no earlier than 500 years after his life and most likely stole from Christianity (see Yamauichi, Historical Notes on the Incomparable Christ, Christianity Today, Oct. 22.1971).

Also, read

The Gospel and the Greek, by Nash

The Case for the Real Jesus, edited by Strobel (pp.157-187).

_________________
Acquisition of spiritual knowledge without purification of the heart is the theology of demons --St. Maximos the Confessor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
Actually, you have it backwards. Christianity came long after Buddhism. IF anyone stoled anything, it was the Christians.

Nash and Strobel are apologists. I'd take what they say with a grain of salt.

Christianity Today is full of horse manure.

BTW, the stories on the Buddha were written in Sanskrit in BCE long before the Christian writings which were written in the 2 century CE.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:55 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 20
Mriana wrote:
Actually, you have it backwards. Christianity came long after Buddhism. IF anyone stoled anything, it was the Christians.

Nash and Strobel are apologists. I'd take what they say with a grain of salt.

Christianity Today is full of horse manure.

BTW, the stories on the Buddha were written in Sanskrit in BCE long before the Christian writings which were written in the 2 century CE.


Lets try to be intelligent here. First, what does the fact Nash and Stroble are "apologists" have anything to do with anything? Your engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Second, Mettinger and Yamauchi are not apologists. They are world class historians.

What you are claiming is not scholarly. Here me out.

BUDDHA

EDWIN YAMAUCHI STATED: "Buddha's birth is often called virginal, but that's not accurate either. Sources for the life of Buddha do not appear in written form untill five centuries after his death, so they're not really reliable historically. According to legend, Buddha's mother dreamed that he entered her in the form of a white elephant -- fully formed. In addition, she had been married for many years prior to this, so she certainly wasn't a virgin" (Strobel, the Case for the Real Jesus, p.181).

EDWIN YAMAUICHI STATED: "The latter sources for Buddha, coming five hundred to fifteen hundred years after his life, exaggerate the supernatural elements of his life. It's even possible that some of the supposed parallels to the life of Jesus, MAY HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM CHRISTIANITY (emphasis mine). See p.182.

Note: Edwin Yamauchi holds a doctorate in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. He has been called "a scholars scholar." He has studied twenty-two languages including Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Chinese, Comanche, Coptic, Egyptian, Mandaic, Syriac, and Ugaritic. He has received eight fellowships; delivered eighty-eitgh papers on Mithraism, Gnosticism and other topics at scholarly societies.

_________________
Acquisition of spiritual knowledge without purification of the heart is the theology of demons --St. Maximos the Confessor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:01 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
Well, finally you are saying something that we can converse with.

1. It was virginal and I typed all the applicable religious text out for you to see. From what I'm gathering you haven't read the thread.

2. Jesus's story, was not written until century AFTER his death and none of them were eyewitnesses. Add to that, the gospels are just literature, just as the story of the Buddha is. Neither are reliable because neither are writing about a real person. It is all pure fiction.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:18 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 20
Mriana wrote:
Well, finally you are saying something that we can converse with.

1. It was virginal and I typed all the applicable religious text out for you to see. From what I'm gathering you haven't read the thread.

2. Jesus's story, was not written until century AFTER his death and none of them were eyewitnesses. Add to that, the gospels are just literature, just as the story of the Buddha is. Neither are reliable because neither are writing about a real person. It is all pure fiction.


I'm sorry but that's just pure bull shit (is swearing allowed here?).

The sources for Buddh are 500-1500 years too late. Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from a creed that dates to 4-5 years after Jesus crucifixtion, and it affirms his life, death and resurrection. (see "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Habermas and Licona) This is agreed upon by ALL NT historians.

The NT was written by eyewitnesses (see Luke 1, 1John, 1, etc).

The NT dates to about 40-60 AD. Read "Redating the New Testament, " by atheist A.T. Robinson.

You really have no clue what on earth you are talking about.

_________________
Acquisition of spiritual knowledge without purification of the heart is the theology of demons --St. Maximos the Confessor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Actually, if there's someone here who hasn't a clue what he's talking about, it would be you.

There is no evidence for the existence of the New Testament until the middle of the second century. The dates you mention below are the mainstream "wishful thinking" dates based on the assumption that the gospel story is true. Those dates have NO scientific basis in reality.

Luke is NOT an eyewitness, so you're wrong once again. And, no, not "ALL" NT scholars agree that Paul reveals a historical Jesus.

Where are the primary sources for the existence of Jesus? Even if you could produce them it would be the very first time throughout history because the earliest church fathers couldn't produce it either.

Incognitus wrote:
Mriana wrote:
Well, finally you are saying something that we can converse with.

1. It was virginal and I typed all the applicable religious text out for you to see. From what I'm gathering you haven't read the thread.

2. Jesus's story, was not written until century AFTER his death and none of them were eyewitnesses. Add to that, the gospels are just literature, just as the story of the Buddha is. Neither are reliable because neither are writing about a real person. It is all pure fiction.


I'm sorry but that's just pure bull shit (is swearing allowed here?).

The sources for Buddh are 500-1500 years too late. Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from a creed that dates to 4-5 years after Jesus crucifixtion, and it affirms his life, death and resurrection. (see "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Habermas and Licona) This is agreed upon by ALL NT historians.

The NT was written by eyewitnesses (see Luke 1, 1John, 1, etc).

The NT dates to about 40-60 AD. Read "Redating the New Testament, " by atheist A.T. Robinson.

You really have no clue what on earth you are talking about.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:40 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 20
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Actually, if there's someone here who hasn't a clue what he's talking about, it would be you.

There is no evidence for the existence of the New Testament until the middle of the second century.


Do you really believe that? Boy you're really behind in theology and history.

Let me help you out a little here.

Several of the apostolic fathers and sources cited from passages in the New Testament within the first century and early second (Sheperd of Hermas, Didache, Hypolitus, Clement, Ignatius, etc).

Read "Redating the New Testament," by A.T. Robinson.

"A General Introduction the the Bible," by Geisler and Nix.

Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
The dates you mention below are the mainstream "wishful thinking" dates based on the assumption that the gospel story is true. Those dates have NO scientific basis in reality.


See above.

Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Luke is NOT an eyewitness, so you're wrong once again. And, no, not "ALL" NT scholars agree that Paul reveals a historical Jesus.


Luke knew eyewitnesses (see Luke 1:1-3).


Paul knew about an historical Jesus. Think twice before you decide to debate me on this. This is your only warning.

_________________
Acquisition of spiritual knowledge without purification of the heart is the theology of demons --St. Maximos the Confessor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:08 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
Are those the only two books you have? Spong even says they aren't eyewitnesses. Price even calls the gospel stories plays. Doherty states they are not historical. The list goes on and on. Why do we need to think twice on debate you concerning this? You haven't even read very much from the books you are spamming us with. None of these people are outdated and some of them have recently been on the Jesus Seminar.

Not only that...

Quote:
If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. ~ Dr. Allen D. Callahn, "From Jesus to Christ: The story of the Storytellers


I love this one:

Quote:
The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres. ~ Dr. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus


In other words, there is no historical Jesus.

Quote:
The gospels are not primarily works of history in the modern sense of the word. ~ Dr. John Meier, A Marginal Jew (I, 41)


Page 37 of Acharya's Who was Jesus? and from Crossan's The Historical Jesus, xxx.

Quote:
Regarding the disparities between the synoptic gospels, Dr. Crossan concludes:

"...when Matthew or Luke are using Mark as a source for what Jesus said or did or what others said or did to Jesus, they are unnervingly free about omission and addition, about change, correction, or creation in their own individual accounts."


Quote:
The Bible at the end of the day, is a very human book. ~ Dr Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (12)


Now those are quotes of quotes from Acharya's book Who Was Jesus?, but I have a stack more of various theologians here that will tell you none of it is historical and none of it are eye witness accounts. Granted, many are Anglican, but not all.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Incognitus "Several of the apostolic fathers and sources cited from passages in the New Testament within the first century and early second (Sheperd of Hermas, Didache, Hypolitus, Clement, Ignatius, etc)."

- Yeah, too bad it doesn't stand up the scrutiny of a scientific analysis. Something your favorite NT scholars turn a blind eye towards.

Quote:
Incognitus "Luke knew eyewitnesses"

- LOL, name them because ... Dr. Craig L. Blomberg says, "the gospels are in fact anonymous" - WWJ 60

Quote:
Incognitus "Paul knew about an historical Jesus. Think twice before you decide to debate me on this. This is your only warning."

- You haven't been accurate on anything so far why should your warning spook me now?

Where are the primary sources for the existence of Jesus? Even if you could produce them it would be the very first time throughout history because the earliest church fathers couldn't produce it either.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:43 am 
Offline
Isis

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:42 am
Posts: 1006
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Quote:
Incognitus "Several of the apostolic fathers and sources cited from passages in the New Testament within the first century and early second (Sheperd of Hermas, Didache, Hypolitus, Clement, Ignatius, etc)."

- Yeah, too bad it doesn't stand up the scrutiny of a scientific analysis. Something your favorite NT scholars turn a blind eye towards.

Quote:
Incognitus "Luke knew eyewitnesses"

- LOL, name them because ... Dr. Craig L. Blomberg says, "the gospels are in fact anonymous" - WWJ 60

Quote:
Incognitus "Paul knew about an historical Jesus. Think twice before you decide to debate me on this. This is your only warning."

- You haven't been accurate on anything so far why should your warning spook me now?

Where are the primary sources for the existence of Jesus? Even if you could produce them it would be the very first time throughout history because the earliest church fathers couldn't produce it either.


ROFLMAO! Incognitus...(I have a sneaky user name like that too :P ) is hilarious :lol:
Quote:
Think twice before you decide to debate me on this. This is your only warning.
Is this person a stand-up comedian? He's got a place on my right hand in heaven...my holy fingers are outstretched to receive this worthy jester :D

_________________
"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as the Authority." -- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist
http://www.myspace.com/skullnboner


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group