[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Here is my question: There seem to be much more people accepting that Lao Zi is only a legend yet somehow accept the existence of people like Buddha and Jesus.

Now my question is, how were Buddha and Jesus more proven to exist? Or that any of their story contains more truth?

The earliest Buddhist Bali cannons are only printed centuries after Buddha died. To be precise, it was more around the 1st century B.C. that Buddha's stories were found. The first mentioning of Buddhism is only on Ashoka's pillars, and nothing about the Buddha himself. And by that time we already know of Lao Zi well in stories, Lao Zi's name also appeared much earlier than Buddha on the Guo Dian. We have no prove of Buddha other than oral traditions. Yet we have very solid record for Lao Zi in imperial archives. Furthermore the Bali Tripitaka is a translated and compiled text and not even the original.


Jesus did not appear anywhere in sources of the first century A.D. except the Gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel. Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, and it omits, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened from the empty tomb. Moreover, "Mark" was a non-Palestinian non-disciple, and the historical detail he provided regarding to Palestinian life is simply inaccurate.
The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. Thus, although Papias 140 CE knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr ( 150 AD) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds.


We got many sources that refer to Lao Zi throughout history but not for Buddha or Jesus. Buddha only appeared in the Pillar of Ashoka, while Jesus only appeared in the Gospels.
We do have reference in several separate sources that record Lao Dan as the caretaker of Zhou book archive. And these sources doesn't seem to be copied off of each other since their stories express different names and events. While most of Buddha and Jesus's stories were filled with miracles and would be considered improbable in what we consider as reality. While all of Lao Dan's stories, except the later Daoist versions, were within the realm of reality except the fact that he lived over 160 years old(which is actually still possible with a strech of imagination). But thats only an assumption and rumour from people.

So is it simply religious bias that because more people believe in Buddhism and Christian that Buddha and Christ were more accepted while Lao Dan was considered fake?

[MengTzu]

Hey warhead,

That's odd, because it seems that the doubt of Lao Zi exists more or less only in the discussion of sophisticated historians of Chinese history. For the general public, many people don't know about Lao Zi, and those who do tend to take his existence for granted.

On the other hand, debates about Jesus' historicity is very well publicized. Although most skeptics seem to believe that he existed, but they are very skeptical about the historicity of the Gospel accounts that described the history of Jesus. And then there are the few skeptics who don't even believe he existed.

[Bao Pu]

Good day Warhead

Quote

Now my question is, how were Buddha and Jesus more proven to exist? Or that any of their story contains more truth?

It's a good question. I don't know much about the origins of Buddhism, so I can't comment on that. As for Jesus, well, apparently many events in his life can be found in earlier or contemporous stories of pagan origins. From what I have read, there is not much good evidence that he existed (let alone be the son of God). But I have no problem believing there was a rebellious rabbi named Yeshua who had some profound experiences and spiritual charisma.

Quote

The first mentioning of Buddhism is only on Ashoka's pillars, and nothing about the Buddha himself. And by that time we already know of Lao Zi well in stories, Lao Zi's name also appeared much earlier than Buddha on the Guo Dian.

Actually, neither "Lao Zi" nor "Lao Dan" are associated with the text found at Guodian.

Quote

We have no prove of Buddha other than oral traditions. Yet we have very solid record for Lao Zi in imperial archives.

"Solid record"? I think not.

Quote

We got many sources that refer to Lao Zi throughout history ... We do have reference in several separate sources that record Lao Dan as the caretaker of Zhou book archive. And these sources doesn't seem to be copied off of each other since their stories express different names and events.

Different versions of the same legend. The earliest Lao Dan is mentioned is mid-late 3rd century BCE (in the Xunzi , Zhuangzi , Hanfeizi and Lüshi Chunqiu), which is a few hundred years after his supposed lifetime. The story found in the Liji is too difficult to date and besides, there is no association whatsoever that he was the author of the Daodejing or believed anything similar. I personally don't find Sima Qian's account to show signs of his confidence in the legend. During the 3rd century BCE there seems to have been a number of "Daoists" who made up stories about Lao Dan criticizing Kongzi. There is a definate agenda here, so I think Sima Qian's retelling should not be taken too seriously. What his account does tell us though, is what the Daoist perspective was and what "being a Daoist" was like.

This is my humble opinion on the matter. And for the record, I am a huge fan of the Daodejing and (early) Daoism, so, if anything, I should be biased towards believing the legend.

[fcharton]

Although the gospels are not contemporary records, the earliest versions we have were written some 50 years after Jesus' death (with the possibility of witnesses still being alive) and many of them (a pretty large number of sources if you include the apocryphals) were written in the century which follows his death. Besides, apart from the gospels, there are numerous references to Jesus life in the acts of the apostols, which might even be earlier.

Also, the gospels (and parts of the acts of the apostols) put Jesus in a historical perspective : they quote historical events, and, apart from the teaching, serve as a biography of Jesus.

For Laozi, the situation is much less clear. If we assume that he lived during the 6th century BC, there are no references to him in the Chunqiu (which covers this period), nor in the (later) Zuozhuan and Guoyu. Zhuangzi has a number of anecdotes (though it is hardly a biography of Laozi), but the inner chapters date from the late 4th century (almost 200 years later), and the outer/mixed ones are much later. The Daodejing gives no information on Laozi (and might well have been an even much later compilation). In fact, the Shiji is the first attempt at a biography of Laozi, and it was written some 400 years after his death.

Francois

[Bao Pu]

Hi François

Quote

Although the gospels are not contemporary records, the earliest versions we have were written some 50 years after Jesus' death (with the possibility of witnesses still being alive) and many of them (a pretty large number of sources if you include the apocryphals) were written in the century which follows his death. Besides, apart from the gospels, there are numerous references to Jesus life in the acts of the apostols, which might even be earlier. Also, the gospels (and parts of the acts of the apostols) put Jesus in a historical perspective : they quote historical events, and, apart from the teaching, serve as a biography of Jesus.

I'm not sure what the "acts of the apostols" are, but I understand that other than bible sources, there is no mention of Jesus in any contemporous work. This is illuminating.

[fcharton]

Bao Pu, on Oct 26 2005, 01:49 AM, said:

I'm not sure what the "acts of the apostols" are, but I understand that other than bible sources, there is no mention of Jesus in any contemporous work. This is illuminating.

I was meaning the letters by Paul, Jacques and a couple of others (actes des apotres in french), they are part of the new testament. On contemporary records, I sort of remember someone tried at some point to prove that there was a dubious sentence in some latin writer which could refer to Jesus, without much success...

Linking back to Laozi, this absence of Jesus from historical texts is all the more troubling as there was no lack of historians at the time, whereas in the case of Laozi, there are very few surviving documents from his time.

Francois

[Bao Pu]

I recall that someone has questioned the historicity of Confucius too.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

""Solid record"? I think not."

Solid as in the very fact that it entered the imperial archives as official history when there are none for Buddha.



"Different versions of the same legend. "

Maybe. But we are simply trying to find out whether there is a historical Lao Zi regardless of his works. If there are legends circulating as early as the end of 4th century B.C., the figure would have existed earlier.

Quote

Linking back to Laozi, this absence of Jesus from historical texts is all the more troubling as there was no lack of historians at the time, whereas in the case of Laozi, there are very few surviving documents from his time.

This is my point, despite the time lag, Jesus lacks no contemporary historical accounts while those of the Warring States are lacking. More is that both Jesus and Buddha's stories are far more unreal and legendary since they outstrip the confines of reality. My focus really isn't on Jesus than Budhha because I already know the debates on Jesus's existence. But right now, the general western academic as well as most all over the world treats Buddha as a character more proven than Lao Zi,(including his stories of enlightenment!) and I have not seen the evidence for such claims over Lao Zi.

[jwrevak]

fcharton, on Oct 25 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

I was meaning the letters by Paul, Jacques and a couple of others (actes des apotres in french), they are part of the new testament. On contemporary records, I sort of remember someone tried at some point to prove that there was a dubious sentence in some latin writer which could refer to Jesus, without much success...

Linking back to Laozi, this absence of Jesus from historical texts is all the more troubling

Personally, I'm unsurpised. In his time, Jesus was an obscure figure. Only a tiny handful of people felt he was an important teacher, prophet, or community leader, let alone the Messiah or the Savior. It took years of missionary activity and theological thought by Paul and others before a significant number of people began to learn the bare basics about him and his teachings let alone convert to "Christianity".

Nevertheless, intensive modern research shows that the Gospel of Mark was written shortly after Jesus' death and establishes his death date with significant surety. Careful textual analysis of the Four Gospels also shows a cohesive group of Jesus' teachings (often called Source Q) that both pre-exists and underlies the Four Gospels. So we know with significant surety when Jesus lived and what he taught. Similarly, we know with significant surety when Confucius lived and what he taught. On the other hand, although Lao-tze may indeed have been a historic person and a philosopher, we do not know with surety when he lived or what he taught. Unfortunately, for Lao-tze we have nothing comparable to the Gospel of Mark or Source Q. We have nothing comparable to the Analects. In addition, just because someone like Lao-tze is enshrined in official ancient histories, does not mean such material is reliable factual history. Today we know better. Today most scholars are far more critical.

[urofpersia]

jwrevak, on Oct 26 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

Personally, I'm unsurpised. In his time, Jesus was an obscure figure. Only a tiny handful of people felt he was an important teacher, prophet, or community leader, let alone the Messiah or the Savior. It took years of missionary activity and theological thought by Paul and others before a significant number of people began to learn the bare basics about him and his teachings let alone convert to "Christianity".

Nevertheless, intensive modern research shows that the Gospel of Mark was written shortly after Jesus' death and establishes his death date with significant surety. Careful textual analysis of the Four Gospels also shows a cohesive group of Jesus' teachings (often called Source Q) that both pre-exists and underlies the Four Gospels. So we know with significant surety when Jesus lived and what he taught. Similarly, we know with significant surety when Confucius lived and what he taught. On the other hand, although Lao-tze may indeed have been a historic person and a philosopher, we do not know with surety when he lived or what he taught. Unfortunately, for Lao-tze we have nothing comparable to the Gospel of Mark or Source Q. We have nothing comparable to the Analects. In addition, just because someone like Lao-tze is enshrined in official ancient histories, does not mean such material is reliable factual history. Today we know better. Today most scholars are far more critical.

And yet the problem remains, since the dates for Jesus/Yeshua is examined within the religious texts by what means can we know they are not fabrications or erroneous? Likewise for Lao Zi is it possible Lao Zi is only a metaphor or amalgam of several persons, supposed conversations between him and other figures not withstanding? The same thing applies to Kongzi, is really that clear cut what were his teachings, and not later ascribed to him? When you consider that even in modern history it is not always easy to determine the actual events, it much be even less so with records from the distant past.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"Nevertheless, intensive modern research shows that the Gospel of Mark was written shortly after Jesus' death and establishes his death date with significant surety. Careful textual analysis of the Four Gospels also shows a cohesive group of Jesus' teachings (often called Source Q) that both pre-exists and underlies the Four Gospels. So we know with significant surety when Jesus lived and what he taught. Similarly, we know with significant surety when Confucius lived and what he taught. On the other hand, although Lao-tze may indeed have been a historic person and a philosopher, we do not know with surety when he lived or what he taught. Unfortunately, for Lao-tze we have nothing comparable to the Gospel of Mark or Source Q. We have nothing comparable to the Analects. In addition, just because someone like Lao-tze is enshrined in official ancient histories, does not mean such material is reliable factual history. Today we know better. Today most scholars are far more critical."

The Dao De Jing is also cohesive. As for Nazereth, there is no record in Roman history that shows such a place. While the place where Lao Zi is from is quite well known. Considering if he is the head of the Zhou imperial archive, its very hard mistake him. We have absolutely no prove that the four gospels were first hand accounts, and they are NOT found right after Jesus' death, at least 40 years passed before Mark's Gospel was even found. Two others were never found, only recorded to be from Jesus, and that was already a hundred years. And his description of Jerusalem is simply wrong from historical studies. Its clear that he is not an eyewitness, or that the later accounts were completely made up. Further the uncovered Gospels does NOT have the traditional biography of Jesus nor are they cohesive, contradicting each other in everyway. Jesus' modern biography only appeared in the late 2nd century. Thus Jesus's actual date of birth is just as clouded as Lao Zi. Furthermore, considering Lao Zi's story is very rooted within reality while Jesus' story is completely shrouded in miracles. The authenticity gives doubt. Whether Lao Zi met Confucius is simply not known since the only major sources we have of judging that is the annalects(which is not a history book) and Mozi(which again, shows contants in a song dynasty version)

As for Confucius, his descendant still exist, and multiple sources other than the Annalect talks about him right after his time. He has way more prove than any of these religious figures, and I don't even want to bring him into this.

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Oct 28 2005, 12:06 AM, said:

As for Confucius, his descendant still exist, and multiple sources other than the Annalect talks about him right after his time. He has way more prove than any of these religious figures, and I don't even want to bring him into this.

Can you show me a list of these documents? I personally hope that he was real. Lionel Jensen, however, contended that Confucius was a mythical figure.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Mozi and Lun Yu are all proves. Jensen's comments is not even about sources, its his assumption that the term "Ru" and Confucius is the same thing and is not a person but a school of saying.

I wonder what he has to say about Confucius' 72 descendant today.

just ignore him, there are people who also thinks Alexander the Great never existed.

[Alexander39]

*As for Nazereth, there is no record in Roman history that shows such a place*

Only partly true, the area in quistion has been populatet from at least 600+ BC according to archeological evidence, and it was not the name for a city as the Bible tried to say, it was a name for the whole area around were Nazareth now lays, the Romans called anybody from there *Nazerius* a bastardication of an old latin name for fishing place/place to sell fish which simply came to mean *from Nazareth* or in other words the fish market

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Thats not the point, there is no prove that the Gospels were first hand accounts other than from the bible. And the descriptions on Gospel indicate that the writer never went to Palestine. And if they are not first hand accounts, and only two has been uncovered at a time interval apart which doesn't talk about the Biblical stories, we have no way of knowing whether Jesus is a made up character or not.