The Greatest Conspiracy

[kentington]

That's an excellent point. Nonetheless, there are unmistakable similarities between Matthew and the Dhammapada. For example:

“In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you ..." (Matthew 7:12) | "“One should do what one teaches others to do..." (Dhammapada 159)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) | “The faults of others are easily seen, but one's own faults are hard to see.” (Dhammapada 252)

“Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy.” (Matthew 6:20) | “The wise share their accumulated wealth, and by doing so build merit that will never decay.” (Dhammapada 355)

I'd be curious to have a qualified human do this analysis and see what they come up with.

Obviously I may not be considered a qualified human, but I do see the similarities. First I will say wisdom is wisdom. A wise saying by one person doesn't preclude another from thinking of it for the first time themselves without having read it.
1. The Dhammapada 159 says, Do as you say not as you do. (Basically) Matthew 7:12 is saying to do as you want others to do. Which could be similar if you were teaching others to treat people as you want to be treated. I would say these are different enough to be their own saying though.
2. Matthew 7:1 ; This is saying you will be held to the same standard you hold others to. The following verse says as much. Just a bit further to Matthew 7:3 and it talks about removing the plank from your eye before removing the speck of sand from your brother. I think Dhammapada 252 would be closer to that. Although, Jesus is doing more than just saying something wise, he is calling people to act on it. That is a slight difference.
3. Matthew 6:20 is not necessarily saying to be generous. It is saying more than that. It is about being eternally and spiritually focused. It's about being God focused rather than worldly. Dhammapada 355 is saying strictly to be generous with your worldly possessions. If you read further, to Matthew 6:24, you will see it says that you cannot serve both God and money.

Again, I can see similarities, but I don't think they are a copy of each other.

A 4th or 5th century CE commentary attributed to Buddhaghosa includes 305 stories which give context to the verses.

Pāli Dhammapada – the oldest available manuscripts date to 1500 CE. A compiler is not named.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada

Doesn't Jesus predate this?
The Dead Sea scrolls are said to be 3rd century BC to 1st century AD.

[kentington]

WTF is this thread? Did you all take peyote together and forget to invite me?

Saxi recognizes the board has politics fatigue. So, he is kicking more life into it by going for another controversial discussion.

[mookiemcgee]

I had a dream this week that the donald somehow got it passed through gov't that he could run for a 3rd term, but then Bill Clinton ran against him and secured the presidency. No peyote involved just natural brain chemicals doing their thing while i slept.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Just hoping Roosevelt rises from the grave and pulls this country's head from its ass. Lol

[jonesthecurl]

I had a dream this week that the donald somehow got it passed through gov't that he could run for a 3rd term, but then Bill Clinton ran against him and secured the presidency. No peyote involved just natural brain chemicals doing their thing while i slept.

Well, according to himself, he won in 2020 and therefore THIS is his third term.

[mookiemcgee]

I had a dream this week that the donald somehow got it passed through gov't that he could run for a 3rd term, but then Bill Clinton ran against him and secured the presidency. No peyote involved just natural brain chemicals doing their thing while i slept.

Well, according to himself, he won in 2020 and therefore THIS is his third term.

Fair but this way my dream, and from my subconcious' perception this was only his second term as president. 0 terms as Prime Minister or Supreme Leader tho!

[jusplay4fun]

What if, during the 18 years of Jesus' life that are unaccounted for, he traveled East and studied with the Magi who had greeted his birth? He learned the perennial religion of man and sought to return and civilize the Israelites. But he had to encase it in a framework with which they would be familiar and so presented his teachings within the context of the Tanakh.

I just asked ChatGPT this question ...

Don't trust chatGPT. It is just an echo chamber. I have adjusted your question to show that I wanted it to confirm a bias towards the Old Testament and not the Dhammapada (which I am actually unfamiliar with, transparency). I know your version of the question seemed to have no bias, but the fact that you are asking it to compare the New Testament towards one, suggests that you don't think it is the Old Testament. At least in my opinion.

That's an excellent point. Nonetheless, there are unmistakable similarities between Matthew and the Dhammapada. For example:

“In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you ..." (Matthew 7:12) | "“One should do what one teaches others to do..." (Dhammapada 159)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) | “The faults of others are easily seen, but one's own faults are hard to see.” (Dhammapada 252)

“Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy.” (Matthew 6:20) | “The wise share their accumulated wealth, and by doing so build merit that will never decay.” (Dhammapada 355)

I'd be curious to have a qualified human do this analysis and see what they come up with.

There is very little dispute that Paul's letters should be included in the New Testament of the Bible. PERIOD.

I don't contend it is a mainstream view. However, to say there is "very little" dispute is to fail to acknowledge the Ebionites - whom Duk mentioned and whom rejected Paul - as well as many very serious scholars who have also rejected the authenticity of Paul. They include prominent early Americans, as well as several notable contemporary religious scholars.

- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Paine
- Leo Tolstoy
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- George Bernard Shaw
- Robert Eisenman
- James Tabor
- Hyam Maccoby

But I admit that Big Church -- institutions with a vested, financial interest in keeping Paul as a soothsayer -- is not open to discussion of that which would put their position at risk.

Saxi cites only:

1) insufficient evidence,

2) weak evidence, and

3) mere speculations, at best.

This part is the most damaging to Saxi's hypothesis, from his own cited source:

Criticisms
John Gager of Princeton University reviewed The Mythmaker (1986) in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1988), describing part of Maccoby's thesis as "perverse misreading" and concluded "Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all."[7][8] Skarsaune (2002), referencing Maccoby's work and the theory that Paul represents a Christianity totally different from that of the early community in Jerusalem, writes that "Acts provides no evidence to substantiate this theory."[9] James D. G. Dunn (2006) describes Maccoby's revival of Graetz' accusations that Paul was a Gentile as "a regrettable reversion to older polemics".[10] The continuity with Graetz is also noted by Langton (2009), who contrasts Maccoby's approach with adherents of a "building bridges" view, such as Isaac Mayer Wise, Joseph Krauskopf, and Claude Montefiore, even if they shared some details of the polemic critique of Paul.[11]

Most of the info on the other two cited sources are equally speculative and offers little support.

I think many thinkers had ideas writings, and speculation on religion, death, and the Second Coming. Isaac Newton did, too, but I do not see him cited by Saxi. Nothing Newton wrote about regarding his religious notions proved to be anything MORE than that: ONLY speculation, and NOTHING Credible.

And I read what I posted. Did you, kent? Or are you reading the sources of Saxi? And what is your conclusion?

And what is meant by the term "Big Church"? That is vague and not helpful alone to advance the discussion.

And this may be very helpful here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Note that I use the same source as Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

Saxi cites only:

1) insufficient evidence,

2) weak evidence, and

3) mere speculations, at best.

This is the canard played by Big Church to maintain the cult of Paul.

"Evidence" for any episode in the Bible does not meet a conventional definition or standard of evidence. But we accept a lesser standard of evidence out of faith. Which is fine.

However, if you criticize Big Church's interpretation of the Bible, Big Church demands you show-up with nothing short of a CSI Miami crime lab.

Everything must be interpretive because we have no uninterrupted chain of custody for any of this. Some of the most important elements of Jesus' life -- like the very existence of Judas Iscariot -- can't be proved except by reference to the Bible itself. So to shut-down an alternative interpretation with "Insufficient evidence!" is a dodge. Because even the conventional interpretation does not have evidence to support it.

[kentington]

Saxi cites only:

1) insufficient evidence,

2) weak evidence, and

3) mere speculations, at best.

Agreed. Although, Saxi is arguing against something. You do not necessarily need to cite anyone for that. Saxi is making claims and asking questions. Some of those were claims that the Bible itself if taken in the order it came speaks against some of the later Nee Testament writings. Is there a source greater than the Bible to cite?

You can disagree with his interpretation, but he did quote scripture.

This part is the most damaging to Saxi's hypothesis, from his own cited source:

Criticisms
John Gager of Princeton University reviewed The Mythmaker (1986) in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1988), describing part of Maccoby's thesis as "perverse misreading" and concluded "Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all."[7][8] Skarsaune (2002), referencing Maccoby's work and the theory that Paul represents a Christianity totally different from that of the early community in Jerusalem, writes that "Acts provides no evidence to substantiate this theory."[9] James D. G. Dunn (2006) describes Maccoby's revival of Graetz' accusations that Paul was a Gentile as "a regrettable reversion to older polemics".[10] The continuity with Graetz is also noted by Langton (2009), who contrasts Maccoby's approach with adherents of a "building bridges" view, such as Isaac Mayer Wise, Joseph Krauskopf, and Claude Montefiore, even if they shared some details of the polemic critique of Paul.[11]

Most of the info on the other two cited sources are equally speculative and offers little support.

I mean, this is only damaging to his view if he was basing his thoughts solely off of this one source. Saxi’s posts were less about relying on the status of the source and rather on the argument itself. I feel like I addressed his arguments directly and therefore didn’t need to go to the source. I don’t understand why I am being questioned on Saxi’s sources and methods. Maybe I am misreading your post, but it feels a bit odd.

I think many thinkers had ideas writings, and speculation on religion, death, and the Second Coming. Isaac Newton did, too, but I do not see him cited by Saxi. Nothing Newton wrote about regarding his religious notions proved to be anything MORE than that: ONLY speculation, and NOTHING Credible.

You don’t need to be credible to ask a question. Credibility comes in the affirmation of something. If someone is saying this is why I don’t believe x, then I take that at face value. No citation is needed or relied upon. Even if they are quoting someone.
If someone says, “This is why YOU need to believe x,” then they better have some good sources and logic.

And I read what I posted. Did you, kent? Or are you reading the sources of Saxi? And what is your conclusion?

I feel like I responded to you and said I would read the essay you cited. It was really long and I was in the middle of reading the Bible to respond to Saxi, who posted first. Obviously you read what you wrote, at least I hope you did.

I have a lot of thoughts on your essay, but the last line of the essay sums it up for me.

Thus, in addition to the passages from the biblical canon that Catholics point to in support of the Church’s claim to God-given authority, the weight of the historical evidence underscores how problematic it is to attribute divine authority to the canonical books of the Christian Bible without also attributing some God-given authority to the institutional Church that played such an integral role in selecting them.

As long as I read the essay in my right mind it seems to say that the reason for choosing the canon is because the group who chose it was given divine authority. Okay, what is the justification of that claim? It was a very long winded way of saying trust me trusting these people because they all agreed. The author gave more info on the Old Testament than the new, just because people mostly agree on the New Testament.

Your source also cites the Pope/s as divine authority, as long as I understand it correctly, and I don’t attribute divine authority to the Pope. I don’t believe the Catholic Church follows the Bible, but that is a whole other topic. I am not arguing that here, just being transparent.

And what is meant by the term "Big Church"? That is vague and not helpful alone to advance the discussion.

And this may be very helpful here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Note that I use the same source as Saxi.

You will have to ask him what he meant by big church. I wasn’t really concerned with it and didn’t even address it.

I really feel like I offended you by answering Saxi first. I am just having a casual conversation in here.

[saxitoxin]

WOW - more and more people are questioning Paul.

I just went to Reddit and searched "Paul Jesus False." Scores upon scores of people spontaneously affirming belief in Jesus and rejecting Paul.

There is clearly a market for a non-Pauline church, but still no non-Pauline church. Not one. Not even a single congregation.

You can have a schism within Christianity over virtually anything and spin-up a new church -- the Apocrypha, Papal Fallibility, Adult Baptism, the Sacraments. You can reject the very existence of the Triune God (see: Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Salvation Army, etc.).

But you can't -- ever, at all, under any circumstance -- reject Paul. (?!)

If this doesn't raise alarms ...

[saxitoxin]

Maybe I'll try to start a non Pauline denomination. I'll call it the Four Book Church or Essentialism or JESUS! FIRST. I wonder how long I'll live?

[HitRed]

Eternity is for everyone, just depends where.

[jusplay4fun]

WOW - more and more people are questioning Paul.

I just went to Reddit and searched "Paul Jesus False." Scores upon scores of people spontaneously affirming belief in Jesus and rejecting Paul.

There is clearly a market for a non-Pauline church, but still no non-Pauline church. Not one. Not even a single congregation.

You can have a schism within Christianity over virtually anything and spin-up a new church -- the Apocrypha, Papal Fallibility, Adult Baptism, the Sacraments. You can reject the very existence of the Triune God (see: Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Salvation Army, etc.).

But you can't -- ever, at all, under any circumstance -- reject Paul. (?!)

If this doesn't raise alarms ...

Perhaps, Saxi, you are on to NOTHING here...??

[saxitoxin]

WOW - more and more people are questioning Paul.

I just went to Reddit and searched "Paul Jesus False." Scores upon scores of people spontaneously affirming belief in Jesus and rejecting Paul.

There is clearly a market for a non-Pauline church, but still no non-Pauline church. Not one. Not even a single congregation.

You can have a schism within Christianity over virtually anything and spin-up a new church -- the Apocrypha, Papal Fallibility, Adult Baptism, the Sacraments. You can reject the very existence of the Triune God (see: Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Salvation Army, etc.).

But you can't -- ever, at all, under any circumstance -- reject Paul. (?!)

If this doesn't raise alarms ...

Perhaps, Saxi, you are on to NOTHING here...??

Perhaps.

Perhaps, I'm on to everything.