Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[smaneck]

Dr. Sam Larsen, professor of missions emeritus, actually did an excellent job in presenting a paper titled Echoes of the Gospel from the First Century: The Mystery of Christ and the Origins of Amida Buddhism

http://www.justobeyjesus.com/#!christian-influence-on-buddhism/cpdv

Early Buddhism Buddhism’s Noble Eightfold Path (right belief, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right occupation, right effort, right contemplation, and right concentration) has similarities to the last six of the Hebrew Ten Commandments. It originated in the time of Nehemiah, when Jews were prominent travelers in the Persian Empire along what later became known as the Silk Road.[1]

Sadly, the reference was left off your posting. In any case, there is no evidence for Jews in China prior to the Sung Dynasty around 960 A.D. The first clear evidence of Jews in Central Asia dates from about the 4th century A.D. However, the Eightfold Path is something we find well before this in India, not the Silk Road. Now if this guy had actually known his stuff he would have been aware that there were already Jews in India before Buddha was born. Problem is they lived on the west coast and Buddha was born in Nepal.

The Persian Empire stretched from Egypt and Asia Minor to the Indus Valley. Whether and to what degree the founder of Buddhism, Siddharta Gautama, also known as Sakyamuni, may have been influenced by the Mosaic decalogue through exilic Jews is difficult to demonstrate.

Pretty easy to demonstrate that there probably was not any influence. Just because the Persian Empire stretched to the Indus does not mean Jews went with it. Yes, as I indicated earlier, there were Jews in India. But like the later Nestorians they came by sea and they were a long ways away from where Buddha was born. About 1500 miles, in fact.

Not surprisingly, Buddhism was opposed by more than one ruler because it was thought to be individualistic[2] and antisocial.

More pointedly, it challenged the caste system.

4. The fourth possibility is that the changes were introduced as tradition holds, circa 90 C.E., in Gandhara, but that those innovations were prompted by contact with outside cultural and religious influences.[20] In light of the preceding discussion, the fourth of these possibilities is intriguing.

There indisputably some outside influence on the development of Buddhism in Gandhara. Whether that led to the development of Mahayana Buddhism is still an open question. The major influence is clearly Hellenism and can be seen in the iconography. The Greeks left behind by Alexander the Great largely converted to Buddhism. Before this Buddhism was an aniconic religion. It was the Greeks who introduced stone idols into India. The earliest idol of the Buddha is modeled after the Greek god Apollo.

Undeniably the means, the motive, and the opportunity were all manifestly available, by both overland and maritime routes, for lay and apostolic Christian missionary activity.

Of course. But you still have to establish that it actually happened.

It may well be true as legend has it, that Thomas the Doubter established the church in India. Certainly that is what the Nestorian Christians in India believe. But there is more evidence he went to the Southwest coast of India, than the northwest. And none of this proves that Christianity influenced the development of Mahayana Buddhism. For that we would need evidence of actual Buddhist-Christian contact during this period, and as far as I know there is none.
And none of this tells us anything about the Pure Land Sect.

​

• 
  

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sadly, the reference was left off your posting. In any case, there is no evidence for Jews in China prior to the Sung Dynasty around 960 A.D. The first clear evidence of Jews in Central Asia dates from about the 4th century A.D.

As said before, one can make making assertions as if they mean anything and actually show via primary sources where your claims are correct. Jews were already present in China for some time LONG before the 4th century and that's a basic - so thus again, you need to actually deal with the scholarship instead of throwing things out verbally that are baseless. As it is, to be technical, other scholars have noted that it was during the Tang Dynasty (around the 8th Century) that the earliest groups of Jews came to China via the overland Silk Road - and others noting it to be far earlier that that, especially as it concerns the travels of Monotheism in China (as well as Japan)...as discussed before elsewhere on Buddhism, for reference:

• The Creator God in Ancient CHINA | All The Children Of Light

... book I think is worth reading on the subject is known as "Faith of Our Fathers: God in Ancient China" by Dr. G. Wright Doyle - more discussed in The One True God In Ancient China - Journey To Orthodoxy. It's truly amazing considering what many other Chinese have noted when it came to the differing religions of their cultures - and how MONOTHEISM was already present in the ancient history of China....with the other religions that developed later losing sight of the roots that were always present - and those new religions all having aspects of early truth that as lost

God in Ancient China

​

And as others wisely pointed out:

Abraham’s Ainu ancestors traveled into China. I am not surprised that the Gospel concerning the “Seed” of God (Gen. 3:15) was planted there. The Ainu alphabet is almost identical to the Hebrew alphabet. The Ainu have been identified as the “First People” of modern humans by the molecular geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. The Ainu were among the aboriginal peoples of the Nile Valley and the rulers of many of the river shrines. One of their shrines was Annu, the original name for Heliopolis (Biblical On), to which the great pyramids were aligned. You will recall that Joseph, son of Jacob, married the daughter of the priest of On (Gen. 41:45). The Chinese alphabet is called Han. This is a variant of Hanu, which is derived from Annu. See this:http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-nilotic-origins-of-ainu.html​

There have been several places which have covered the issue in documentation for the history of Jews in Asia and their migration long before the 4th century (including the world-wide Jewish body) - be it here (over in the Messianic Judaism section) or here:

• Asian Jews
  
  
• Be'chol Lashon: Population: Asia: Jews of India
• Be'chol Lashon: Population: Asia: Jews of China

As said best there:

Jews of China

As with other ancient communities, it is unclear exactly when the Jews first arrived in China. Scholars say that Jews may have come as early as the First Temple period, from the ten Lost Tribes, or during the Talmudic period. At that time, Roman, Persian, and Middle Eastern merchants came to China for trade. Jewish merchants may have traveled the Silk Road to Kaifeng to conduct trade and stayed there for better business opportunities.

There are traces of a Jewish presence beginning at least in the 7th century. The first documented proof of Jewish existence in China was discovered over a century ago. A letter written in Judeo-Persian on paper (a commodity that was produced only in China) was found attesting to the fact that the Jews probably came from Persia, introducing cotton-cloth to China, known primarily for its silk industry.

The most enduring community was that in Kaifeng. From the 10th-13th century, China was ruled by the emperors of the Song Dynasty from their capital at Kaifeng, which lies north of Beijing on the Yellow River. It had a population of 1.5 million people in the 10th century, probably the largest city in the world at the time:

[Kaifeng was] a bustling metropolis straddling the legendary Silk Road that linked their sprawling domain to its trading partners in the West. [...] The main street in the Jewish section of Kaifeng is called The Lane of the Sect that Teaches the Scriptures, the remnants of a Jewish community which flourished for nearly a thousand years until the 1840's.​

The synagogue in Kaifeng, constructed in the 11th century, was the center of their life and activities. The 5,000 Jews in 17th century Kaifeng were successful in Confucian society. In the mid-17th century a civil war raged in China, and Kaifeng was flooded, resulting in the destruction of the entire city. Only one-third of the population survived, including some 1,000 Jews. Kaifeng never fully recovered. The Jews rebuilt the synagogue in 1663. During this time, the Kaifeng Jews were discovered by Jesuit priests.

the Eightfold Path is something we find well before this in India, not the Silk Road. Now if this guy had actually known his stuff he would have been aware that there were already Jews in India before Buddha was born. Problem is they lived on the west coast and Buddha was born in Nepal.

The Eightfold path being present BEFORE the Silk Road does zero in addressing the reality of what other scholars have noted with it being spread/influenced to develop in different ways when CHristianity arose in areas it was not present and the Silk Road led to things spreading/combining further. This is another basic fact scholars have long pointed out...Francis Woods being one of the main ones:

​

And as it concerns influences, scholars such as Dale A. Johnson spoke on the issue (in addition to Palmer and others already noted like Francis Woods) - as seen in Jesus on the Silk Road and other places.

• Buddhism and Its Spread Along the Silk Road
• Secrets of the Silk Road - Video - University of Penn State
• Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue: The Gerald Weisfeld Lectures 2004 By Perry Schmidt-Leukel

​

Pretty easy to demonstrate that there probably was not any influence. Just because the Persian Empire stretched to the Indus does not mean Jews went with it. Yes, as I indicated earlier, there were Jews in India. But like the later Nestorians they came by sea and they were a long ways away from where Buddha was born. About 1500 miles, in fact.

That's an argument from speculation, seeing that Jews were documented to be within the Persian Empire and that has been show repeatedly. Iranian Jews (Jews of Persia, who are directly connected to Queen Esther in Esther 2-9 since she lived there )....and for the Jews in Iran who either lived there or currently reside there (from the beginning since King Cyrus..also considered to be simultaneous with Darius the Mede ). They did not just come by sea and that is another basic with Jewish migration - just as it is basic that the Nestorians NEVER came by sea only since they traveled along the Silk Road/other trade routes.

Facts are facts and you've not really dealt with them thus far...

• The Persians | Jewish Virtual Library
  
• A Brief History of Iranian Jews PART 1

Thus again, if one is going to make an argument, they need to do so based on fact rather than first going off of assumption.

More pointedly, it challenged the caste system.

And challenging the Caste System was through the individualistic dynamic that came with it.

There indisputably some outside influence on the development of Buddhism in Gandhara. Whether that led to the development of Mahayana Buddhism is still an open question. The major influence is clearly Hellenism and can be seen in the iconography. The Greeks left behind by Alexander the Great largely converted to Buddhism. Before this Buddhism was an aniconic religion. It was the Greeks who introduced stone idols into India. The earliest idol of the Buddha is modeled after the Greek god Apollo.

• The Image of the Buddha: Buddha Icons and Aniconic Traditions in Indian and China - Wenzel - Transcultural Studies...
  
  
• The Shift from Aniconic to Anthropomorphic Buddha inGreco-Buddhist Iconography: How Anthropomorphism Advanced Buddhism
  

Iconography in Buddhism with regards to aniconism has been challenged often, actually, and is not absolute to be clear. As said best elsewhere in Early Buddhist art and the theory of aniconism
:

For nearly a hundred years, the theory of aniconism has been universally
accepted in the interpretation of early Buddhist art. The early
twentieth-century writer Alfred Foucher was the first to articulate the
theory.[1] He based his ideas on the assumption that the earliest Buddha
images were those produced in the Gandhara region of ancient India during
the early centuries of the Christian era--more than half a millennium after
the Buddha lived. In Gandhara, he surmised, Indian artists were introduced
to what he considered a superior sculptural heritage--that of the Greek and
classical world--which stimulated the creation of anthropomorphic images of
the Buddha.[2] Indian sentiment was naturally offended at the suggestion
that Western influence was required to motivate the production of the
Buddha image. Ananda Coomaraswamy took the case to the Art Bulletin, where
he contended in a frequently cited article that the impetus for creating
the Buddha image was rooted in indigenous beliefs and sculptural
traditions.[3] At the same time, Coomaraswamy, like Foucher, accepted the
theory of aniconism to explain the art in which portrayals of the Buddha in
human form did not occur.

Considering some of the underlying principles of Buddhism, it has not been
difficult for scholars to suggest explanations for the absence of
anthropomorphic images of the Buddha in early Buddhist art. One author
notes that "the Buddha was not shown at all, to symbolize the fact that he
was nibbuta (`extinguished'),"[4] thus relating the notion of aniconism
with the very essence of Buddhism--the cessation of existence in physical
form. Another scholar cites a verse from the Suttanipata, which states, "He
who is passionless regarding all desires, Resorts to nothingness,"[5] to
suggest that the Buddha's transcendence of personal, egoistic existence may
be linked with the artistic phenomenon. This author further suggests that
"As flame... blown by the force of wind goes out and is no longer
reckoned.... Even so the sage, released from name and form, goes out and is
no longer reckoned,"[6] and concludes that the absence of Buddha figures in
human form in the early art reflects the Buddha's "true Nirvana essence
[which is] inconceivable in visual form and human shape."[7] While such
concepts are central to Buddhist thinking, they may not be pertinent to the
issue of aniconism. Although such references recur throughout Buddhist
literature, they do not directly address the issue of whether a Buddha
should be represented in human form.

So deeply embedded within a matrix of long-standing views of Buddhist
doctrinal, institutional, and sectarian history is the aniconic
interpretation of early Buddhist art that any erosion of the theory
threatens to crumble the foundations upon which decades of scholarship have
been built. Acceptance of a so-called period of aniconism preceding an
image-making phase has been so strong that a number of cases may be cited
where secure archaeological, inscriptional, and literary evidence to the
contrary has been dismissed to accommodate the theory.[8]

Nonetheless, a fresh analysis based on archaeological, literary, and
inscriptional evidence casts doubt on the practice of deliberate avoidance
of Buddha images. For instance, one of the cornerstones of the aniconic
theory has been that the early art reflected "Hmayana"[9] forms of Buddhism
and that "Hmayana" Buddhists had doctrinal proscriptions against the
creation of works of art showing Buddhas in their human forms. Proponents
of the theory have contended that the practice of creating anthropomorphic
representations of the Buddha was initiated only when Mahayana Buddhism
began to flourish around the early centuries of the Christian era.





​

​

Of course. But you still have to establish that it actually happened. It may well be true as legend has it, that Thomas the Doubter established the church in India. Certainly that is what the Nestorian Christians in India believe. But there is more evidence he went to the Southwest coast of India, than the northwest. And none of this proves that Christianity influenced the development of Mahayana Buddhism. For that we would need evidence of actual Buddhist-Christian contact during this period, and as far as I know there is none.

And none of this tells us anything about the Pure Land Sect.​

Argument via personal incredulity doesn't equate to not establishing that something did not happen - as it was never legend for Thomas to visit India/establish the Churches there as he did (with it being the case that it was never either or since he went both Southwest and Northwest - as there are churches in both areas). It is a moot point trying to say he went more so Southwest potentially since St. Thomas Christians do not argue on that point when it comes to his being in India, as it concerns Mar Thoma and the Apostolic Foundation of the Assyrian Church and the Christians of St. Thomas in India
- and as said before, none of that shows whatsoever where Nestorian Christians were not present when it came to Pure Land Sects or the other camps of Buddhism which numerous scholars have already pointed out with influence.

Choosing to avoid where it was addressed isn't the same as saying "Well we need to still see" - as the bottom line is that it was already acknowledged by other Buddhist scholars rather frankly. Bottom line: If one does not want to have Christianity seen as having significant influence in Indian culture before other religions because of their own bias, any reason will suffice to be brought forward.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Pure Land Buddhism is thoroughly rooted in the Bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism that the purpose of attaining Buddhahood is to then help all other beings attain Buddhahood.

Pure Land Buddhists trust in the vow of Amitabha to help all people who sincerely come to him, just as every Mahayana Buddhist makes a vow to seek Buddhahood for the sake of helping all other beings attain Buddhahood.

If one is unfamiliar with the importance of the Bodhisattva vow to Mahayana Buddhism, then one sadly doesn't really know much of anything related to Mahayana Buddhism.

Can we please stop with the arguing and the religious triumphalism? I think it's better if we calmly ask each other honest questions about what we believe and why we believe it.

Claiming Pure Land Buddhism to be rooted in the Bodhisattva ideal doesn't show where that was either universally the case at any point in the Buddhist worldview - nor does it mean that the AMitabha was originally what Buddhism envisioned and was in any way a means of salvation that somehow predated Christianity. If one is unfamiliar and unwilling to deal with where even Buddhist Scholars have noted honestly that the ideals of trusting in the Amitabha is not unique to Buddhism and something that was borrowed, one sadly does not want to actually deal with the Bodhisattva vow as other Buddhist have noted - and it was already admitted earlier by yourself where you don't fully know on the systems anyhow.

The whole idea of trusting in Amida Buddha is that he does the work for us, including giving us faith. This may sound like an evangelical Christian idea, but Shinran wrote it three hundred years before Martin Luther, and based it on ancient Mahayana sutras.

Almost everything said about Jesus was already said about Buddha almost six hundred years earlier, the main difference being that, while Jesus is claimed to be the only son of God who came down from heaven, the Buddha is an awakened man, leading us all to our own enlightenment.

This is a beautiful Bollywood film on the life of Buddha, click on CC for English subtitles:

The entire concept of trusting in God who gives us faith did not begin with Martin Luther - thus making the comparison to Shinran rather inconsistent since the early Church already promoted the concept among the Church Fathers - with it even being present in the school of thought that Hiliel promoted in Judaism when it came to God's grace and what He gives.

That said, respectfully, I think it would be wise to cease with the side-argument/false claim of "religious triumphalism" since it's inconsistent when one already tried to claim Buddhism was superior to all other religions and that Christianity took from it. Unless wants to actually go back/address what they said, they need to not switch in the middle of discussion or be personal.

Please keep in mind that, through all this time, going back to my high school years, my position has been that there is one divine being who manifests Itself to the various religions in the world in different ways for the sake of meeting people where they are at, similar to the Buddha's doctrine of expedient means. I never claimed that Jesus is the only way and I claimed that following Jesus was one of many paths to salvation.

I wasn't aware until 2011 that there is a form of Buddhism such as Jodo Shinshu that depends upon an Other-Power's grace instead of on one's own efforts for salvation, and that they believe having a relationship with the living Buddha is possible for believers in him. And it was only because of my family of origin that, in 2011, I stopped going to the temple.

No one in Catholicism or Orthodoxy for that matter has ever said that God has not revealed what the Lord is about to other religions in one way or another. However, itis off trying to say one never said Jesus was the ONLY way when it was previously emphasized (even in 2011) that salvation in Christ was a matter of living out what He called for regardless - something even the unsaved can do as well and as others such as Gregory McDonald pointed out (which I have also advocated before - here and here and here - alongside others when it comes to how inclusive God is).

As said before:

Virtually the entire meaning of Christian faith is determined by how one translates Romans 3:22, Galations 2:16 and Galations 3:22. The King James version provides an arguably more accurate rendering of these verses than some of today's translations.

Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law*, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The Greek word for faith can be translated as either belief or faithfulness. Evangelical scholars would like us to think Paul is saying we are saved by intellectual belief in their doctrines about Jesus. Instead, what Paul may be saying is that we are saved by living the faith of Jesus, by having the same radical trust in God that he lived out.

In these verses, Paul is telling us not to believe a religion about Jesus but rather to live the religion of Jesus. For almost two thousand years, Christianity has emphasized belief in Jesus' atoning death while too often neglecting his remarkable life. Living the faith of Jesus is open to all people, regardless of your intellectual assent to a dogma about Jesus.

*Paul makes a distinction between works of the law and works of love. While works of the law add nothing to salvation, works of love are the evidence of sincere faith.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I think an overemphasis on Jesus' death as appeasing God's wrath makes Christianity out to be a Satanic death cult. I'd rather see Jesus' death and resurrection as enabling our spiritual rebirth in which we grow in his likeness.
This understanding of salvation is rooted in Scripture and the early church.

.....MacDonald rejected the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as developed by John Calvin, which argues that Christ has taken the place of sinners and is punished by God in their place, believing that in turn it raised serious questions about the character and nature of God. Instead, he taught that Christ had come to save people from their sins, and not from a Divine penalty for their sins. The problem was not the need to appease a wrathful God but the disease of cosmic evil itself. George MacDonald frequently described the Atonement in terms similar to the Christus Victor theory. MacDonald posed the rhetorical question, "Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!"

MacDonald was convinced that God does not punish except to amend, and that the sole end of His greatest anger is the amelioration of the guilty. As the doctor uses fire and steel in certain deep-seated diseases, so God may use hell-fire if necessary to heal the hardened sinner. MacDonald declared, "I believe that no hell will be lacking which would help the just mercy of God to redeem his children." MacDonald posed the rhetorical question, "When we say that God is Love, do we teach men that their fear of Him is groundless?" He replied, "No. As much as they fear will come upon them, possibly far more. … The wrath will consume what they call themselves; so that the selves God made shall appear."

However, true repentance, in the sense of freely chosen moral growth, is essential to this process, and, in MacDonald's optimistic view, inevitable for all beings. He recognized the theoretical possibility that, bathed in the eschatological divine light, some might perceive right and wrong for what they are but still refuse to be transfigured by operation of God's fires of love, but he did not think this likely.

In this theology of divine punishment, MacDonald stands in agreement with the Greek Church Fathers St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St.Gregory of Nyssa, although it is unknown whether MacDonald had a working familiarity with Patristics or Eastern Orthodox Christianity. At least an indirect influence is likely, because F. D. Maurice who influenced MacDonald knew the Greek Fathers, especially Clement, very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald

It might seem scandalous to say this but we are saved by works. We are saved by the works of Christ lived out through us. Saving faith in Jesus produces the life of Jesus in us.

If we don't Christ work through our lives now, we may need to in the age to come:

Purgatory Explained by Greg Boyd

One cannot reference other Christians who've also said Christ is the ONLY way to salvation and simultaneously say "But I never said Christ was the only way to salvation" - it is simply not consistent. And again, this was back even in 2011....

Just saying...

And nothing you've presented establishes that Nestorian Christians did proceed Pure Land Buddhism in China. What you gave us is an assertion from someone writing about Japan insisting there was some second century Christian monk which he fails to either name or provide any evidence whatsoever of his existence. All the other information you cite talks about Nestorians from sometime in the eighth century, nearly four centuries after the founding of the Pure Land Sect.

Again, if you're going to try asserting, you need to actually do more than assert - for thus far, all you've done is cried "That's just an article!!" without actually DEALING with where there was an issue. You can do better than that hopefully. You've already avoided where Nestorian Christians were present in East China long before Pure Land Buddhism and where it evolved differently in Japan - as it concerns Nestorian Steel.

If you cannot be intelectually honest with the actual research, then you are making it up as you go along - avoiding where other scholars were already mentioned BY name and where Nestorians were discussed from the 2nd/3rd centuries and onward. So again, no need discussing if you cannot deal with facts honestly.

I'm looking at your sources and they simply aren't matching your assertions. Mind you, I didn't look at your videos. They can't be analyzed the same way as texts, so I tend to ignore them.

And again, simply claiming "They aren't matching your assertions" is NOT dealing with the actual argument in it - or showing it to not be true and addressing the actual text. Choosing to ignore rather than address and claim that is actual addressment is never sufficient, seeing that it is not difficult to analyze directly....and as you've already ignored scholars on the field, it is again evidence of arguments via assertion rather than addressing material in context.

Again, you've yet to establish this is in fact the case. All your information regarding Nestorians in China aren't any earlier than the Tang
Dynasty.

Another falsehood which was already addressed earlier - but again, as you're making it up as you go along with anything you disagree with, I am not surprised. Other scholars have already covered it credibly, so your disapproval is irrelevant.

Again, please provide direct evidence not simply some scholar on Japan who can't even properly footnote his sources.

And again, seeing that several points of direct evidence were dealt with - from the Jesus Sutras to the Nestorian Steel and other things (some of which was documented in the videos by other scholars you failed to actually deal with), one can please save it with speaking on needing direct evidence. Talking on footnotes is ad-hominem, as it is, seeing that it has little to do with the issue and assumes one does things flawlessly when you DON'T ....

Nestorians are active on the silk road between the seventh and ninth centuries. Buddhism, on the other hand, spreads in its Mahayana form in the first and second centuries. By 400 A.D. we have clear evidence of the Pure Land Sect. If anything influence likely went the other direction. After all, we know Mani in Mesopotamia was influenced by Buddhism.

Again, incorrect - and you've been addressed several times for repeating that falsehood when the Nestorians were already present in the 2nd century onward as it concerns the Assyrian Church of the East in its missionary activities throughout Asia. We can also examine the activities of The Assyrian Church in the Mongolian Empire

Speaking past that as if it didn't happen is not dealing honestly with the history and it does not change because you wish to avoid that simple reality.

You're basing this on an assertion that there is this unnamed monk from the second century and the author of the book which asserted this did so without providing any evidence whatsoever! He may be right that Christianity and Buddhism reach Japan around the same time, but the Pure Land Sect has already centuries old in China by this time.

Incorrect again, seeing that more was said besides an "unnamed monk" (Limited as that is) - seeing that it was also discussed/verified elsewhere but of course you already admitted to avoiding most of the material so there's no real dealing with the issue. Pure Land Sect was not centuries old before Christianity reached Japan - but again, you're not dealing with the facts so one can only go so far.

You've still not provided any evidence whatsoever there is any connection between the two.

And as said before, you've still done nothing more than harp/assert without actually demonstrating such via primary source or fact. Your word alone does not count for actual dealing with the text or what other historians have said long before you arrived. There are many intersections on the issue which have already been covered, more seen in A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal ...

The CHristian faith was promoted a lot during the Tang Dynasty, but it was never the moment when Christianity arose. For Nestorian Christians had already arrived in in an official capacity before the Tang Court in 635 AD led by Alopen

Again, that is way too late to prove influence. The Tang Dynasy is seventh through nine century. The Pure Land sect is founded around 400 A.D.

And as said before, it is falsehood to try asserting the Tang Dynasty as some kind of trump card as if other Chinese scholars did not deal with that already since influence occurred way before that. One can either be honest on that - or continue to harp facts which have not been universally accepted in academia anyhow.

I've used this resource and nowhere does it indicate that Nestorian Christianity reaches China before the development of Pure Land Buddhism, nor does it indicate that Nestorian Christianity provided them with the Christian concept of salvation through grade.

Again, the attempt is nice - but claiming such on the resource doesn't equate to showing word for word where it EVER advocated for your position. One can easily give quotes directly if they actually wanted to make a real point.

This book is not about sources of Pure Land Buddhism, it is about how Western scholars have studied it. Besides, its focus is on Japan. To prove Christian influence on the development of the Pure Land Sect you need to be looking at China not Japan. In fact, I would ignore any study that uses the name Amida rather than Amitabha, because be definition it is focusing on a much later period.

Equivocation, seeing that the book also discussed the sources of Pure Land Buddhism and used that as the basis for discussing why Western scholars studied it in a certain. Additionally, one already disconnects their argument when assuming that Pure Land Buddhism developed the same in all places - so it's foolish saying one needs to look at China rather than Japan to see how it developed...in the same way it'd be foolish to say that one can only understand Christianity by looking at how it developed in Rome rather than how it developed in Iraq, Ireland and other places. You follow all of its branches

And before you make assertions regarding the impact of Nestorian Christianity on the Pure Land Sect you need to make sure the chronology matches. And even that doesn't by itself establish a causal relationship. What is certain is that events that follow an event can't cause it. It doesn't matter how many sources you cite if they don't confirm your assertions.

Again, you've already failed at proving your own chronology to even be accurate - so to speak on a causal relationship not being present is without basis since it is begging the question on your part....you can't already assume events didn't follow from something and then read that back into the information while reading past where things began. It really matters not how much you try asserting as if that alone means anything - as it doesn't confirm what other scholars have already noted and thus places you at odds with the field for your own agenda rather than actually having a leg to stand on.

It is what it is..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'd say Panentheism .

.

The evolution is interesting...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'd say Panentheism .

.

Theistic Panentheism tends to offer the best way of explaining what Christianity in the Early Church (as well as Judaism ) spoke on and what is expressed in Buddhism with realization of the Self. There was actually an interesting article on the issue that I think you'd be able to appreciate - as noted here in Evolutionary Panentheism for the Planetary Era.

And As another wisely noted:

​

In the best definition of Panentheism, God transcends yet also immanently includes all beings as their true Identity, their Real Self, the only ONE who can say “I AM THAT I AM.” Thus, in pure Panentheism, God is beyond all beings/persons as their Source, and within all as their essential Substance. God is Spirit, God is Truth, God is Light, God is Love. These are our very Biblical definitions of God, and notice that these terms “Spirit,” “Truth,” “Light,” and “Love” clearly connote a Trans-personal or Supra-personal, not merely “personal” Divine Reality.

This Panentheism positing of a truly Transpersonal God or Divine Absolute easily takes us beyond the old false choice that we must choose between a “personal God” or “impersonal God.” This false choice is what too many Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergy have tried to foist onto people who, for instance, begin to explore Western or Eastern mystical forms of religion and spirituality with a loftier conception of God than given in their non-mystical or anti-mystical institutional religions. How many times have I heard the God so fully cherished and lived by the mystics of our Eastern and Western traditions, scornfully denigrated as “impersonal” by non-mystics and second-rate theologians who have no conception of the depth and subtlety and beauty of what our most esteemed theologians of East and West have taught about the Divine Nature for the last few millennia. Ah, but it is an old pattern: the non-mystics don’t understand the mystics, and, especially in the West, have tried to silence them, even to the point of putting them to death! How strange and bizarre to be more attached to your own “orthodoxy” (“correct belief”) than to the Living God who is fully transcendent and immanent and has revealed some of this magnificent Divine glory to the transparently-clear, ego-free heart-minds of the mystic saints and sages!

So let us deeply contemplate what our mystics are saying, after all. For they allow us to let God be God in the most sublimely grand and glorious manner: both transcendent and immanent, both Transpersonal and Personal. This God is the true Reality of Spirit, Love, Light and Truth Who is ultimately Formless, yet capable of manifesting as a beautiful personal Form for devotees, just as this God has manifested so spectacularly as all creation. This God (or Absolute Godhead, Brahman, Buddhata, Tao) is the Conscious, Compassionate Context or Ground of Being—in Whom all of us “live, move and have our being,” as Paul wrote nearly 2000 years ago. This God is the “no-thing-like” Spirit and Origin of all “things”—and modern physics tells us quite clearly, along with mystics of sacred traditions, that all “things” are ultimately illusions, not truly solid, substantial, or permanent, just temporary forms of energy. God is the Source of all energy-matter and space-time.

Rabbi Jesus stated, “God is Spirit and must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.” (John 4:24) He did not say that God is a human-like, bodily-formed person up in a heaven whom we must somehow perceive and praise as a separate, distinct “object.” Incidentally, note that any translation of the Bible which renders this passage as “God is a Spirit” is wrong and misleading, suggesting a dualism between “God’s Spirit” and “my spirit.” There is no dualism. In Panentheism, God is Absolute Spirit and has no rivals or “others.” There is only one Spirit or Being as source of all beings, only one Self as source of all selves, only one Awareness underlying all viewpoints or states of consciousness.

Jesus is also alleged to have notably said that God’s domain (the Kingdom of Heaven) is “within you” (Luke 17:20-21), that is to say, God is interior or prior to all distinctions such as inside/outside. Again, our God, the true Self, is no mere object outside us in the field of our psychic perception, but the Eternal, Changeless Subject, the One Alone of Whom Being can be predicated. Thus, God is not limited to any one form or place. Being omnipresent, God is always right HERE. All of us apparently-separately-existing beings are dreamed by God and so are, depending on our degree of selflessness or selfishness, either clear or opaque windows onto the Divine Omni-Presence. For it is the One Divine Actor who plays all the parts or roles as persons (“masks,” “facades”) in this “Divine Comedy.” And yes, this is, for those mystics or awake ones who have penetrated the surface appearances, plainly and magnificently a Divine Comedy, in which the many moments and periods of pain, injustice, terror, etc. are each part of the infinite Divine Spirit’s experiencing of finite, material adventures.

Let us lovingly, gratefully celebrate this formless Transcendent One, utterly beyond all, yet, paradoxically, also immanent in/as all beings as their ego-free Self! Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!​

 

[Yoder777]

Claiming that Jodo Shinshu is just a Christianized form of Buddhism has been used to marginalize Japanese-Americans into converting to Christianity for over a hundred years.

Let's also keep in mind that the Pure Land sutras were committed to writing around the first century, and were likely based on earlier oral tradition. To cast the Pure Land sutras into doubt, therefore, is to cast the whole Mahayana canon into doubt.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This whole debate (and the considerable ire attached to it) seems to stem from the idea that world views need to be "pure" in order to be valid, and that coming into contact with other perspectives is to be seen as a sort of corruption or subjugation.

Maybe it's time we started looking at this differently.

World views never manifest in a vacuum. Even the most revolutionary, drastically new perspectives are a direct result of the socio-cultural circumstances that existed around it. Nor are world views static constructs: they evolve and change along with the people and cultures that exist around them - and that is, for the most part, a GOOD THING.

The idea that world views are best seen in isolation, as utterly self-contained constructs, is not only misleading, it is positively false.

 

[smaneck]

As said before, one can make making assertions as if they mean anything and actually show via primary sources where your claims are correct. Jews were already present in China for some time LONG before the 4th century and that's a basic - so thus again, you need to actually deal with the scholarship instead of throwing things out verbally that are baseless.

Uh, you didn't provide any evidence for a Jewish presence in China prior to the Fourth Century. What you do present below is evidence for the a Jewish presence during the Tang Dynasty. Okay, I'll go with that. I got the Sung Dynasty from one of the websites you yourself was claiming as evidence! Only it said something totally different from what you said. And I'm seeing that happen a lot.

and others noting it to be far earlier that that, especially as it concerns the travels of Monotheism in China

as discussed before elsewhere on Buddhism, for reference:

Youtube does not constitute primary sources.

• The Creator God in Ancient CHINA | All The Children Of Light

I see nothing on that website that supports your assertions.

There have been several places which have covered the issue in documentation for the history of Jews in Asia and their migration long before the 4th century (including the world-wide Jewish body) - be it here (over in the Messianic Judaism section) or here:

Then quote me where it does so because I'm really tired of chasing this stuff down only to find it says something totally different than what you state it says.

As said best there:

Where does it say it?

The Eightfold path being present BEFORE the Silk Road does zero in addressing the reality of what other scholars have noted with it being spread/influenced to develop in different ways when CHristianity arose in areas it was not present and the Silk Road led to things spreading/combining further.

That sentences doesn't even make sense.

This is another basic fact scholars have long pointed out...Francis Woods being one of the main ones:

Once again, Youtube videos don't constitute evidence. I won't even waste my time with them. And as for your other sources, every time I check them out they say something totally different, so please provide us with the actual statements there which support your arguments because I sure can't find them.

And as it concerns influences, scholars such as Dale A. Johnson spoke on the issue (in addition to Palmer and others already noted like Francis Woods) - as seen in Jesus on the Silk Road and other places.

So show us where Johnson provides evidence of Christians on the Silk Road meeting Buddhists prior to the 400 A.D. when the Pure Land Sect started.
​

That's an argument from speculation, seeing that Jews were documented to be within the Persian Empire and that has been show repeatedly. Iranian Jews (Jews of Persia, who are directly connected to Queen Esther in Esther 2-9 since she lived there )

LOL. You are the one who is speculating. Your assumption seems to be that since there were Jews in the Persian Empire and the Persian Empire extended to the Indus Valley therefore Jews must have been in North India as well. There are some basic flaws in that line of argument. Just because I live in the US doesn't mean I've ever been to North Dakota. And you do this on the basis of the story of Esther and Mordacai? Assuming the story is historical, it took place in Ecbatana today known as Hamadan in western Iran. That's about 1500 miles away from north India.

They did not just come by sea and that is another basic with Jewish migration

There is only evidence of one Jewish immigration to India anywhere near the time of the Persian Empire. The Cochin Jews claim that some of their ancestors came after the destruction of the First Temple. If you have evidence of other migrations, please present it in the form of a direct quote, not youtube video or a website which says something totally different.

- just as it is basic that the Nestorians NEVER came by sea only since they traveled along the Silk Road/other trade routes.

It is possible that a Roman Jew, perhaps Thomas, started the church in India and it only became Nestorian sometime later. But it did arrive by sea.

Facts are facts and you've not really dealt with them thus far...

Yes, I have. You seem to think that posting vids and links that don't support your arguments constitutes 'facts.' They don't. You forget that the history of Persia is my main area of specialty and the main reason I sought a PhD to begin with. I have written articles on Persian Jewry.

Thus again, if one is going to make an argument, they need to do so based on fact rather than first going off of assumption.

So why don't you do that? Present the evidence, not just videos or links that don't support your case.

Iconography in Buddhism with regards to aniconism has been challenged often, actually, and is not absolute to be clear.

When I was a graduate student I was put in charge of organizing a huge collection of photos of Gandharan and Buddhist art, placing t hem in chronological order. It was pretty clear to me.

Nonetheless, a fresh analysis based on archaeological, literary, and
inscriptional evidence casts doubt on the practice of deliberate avoidance
of Buddha images. For instance, one of the cornerstones of the aniconic
theory has been that the early art reflected "Hmayana"[9] forms of Buddhism
and that "Hmayana" Buddhists had doctrinal proscriptions against the
creation of works of art showing Buddhas in their human forms. Proponents
of the theory have contended that the practice of creating anthropomorphic
representations of the Buddha was initiated only when Mahayana Buddhism
began to flourish around the early centuries of the Christian era.

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Whether or not Buddhism was officially aniconic, is not really that relevant. The fact of the matter is that idols of Buddha start appearing only under Hellenistic influence. And the earliest Buddhas are clearly patterned after the Greek god Apollo. They even show Buddha wearing a toga.

And btw, the same thing happens in Hinduism which was clearly not aniconic. We still don't see stone idols until after Alexander the Great. We do see smaller idols made out of various materials but not the big stone sculpture.
​

Argument via personal incredulity doesn't equate to not establishing that something did not happen - as it was never legend for Thomas to visit India/establish the Churches there as he did (with it being the case that it was never either or since he went both Southwest and Northwest - as there are churches in both areas).

Where is your evidence for a church in northwest India whose history can be traced to antiquity? It has not, btw, ever been historically proven that St. Thomas ever went to India, but I'm willing to concede that it is possible he did.

- and as said before, none of that shows whatsoever where Nestorian Christians were not present when it came to Pure Land Sects or the other camps of Buddhism which numerous scholars have already pointed out with influence.

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is on you to show that they were present. Instead what you've shown is that there were Christians in India early on. You have no evidence of their having contacts with Buddhists and the Pure Land Sect doesn't get started in India anyhow. Your evidence for Nestorians in China is three or four centuries after the founding of the Pure Land Sect. As for those "scholars" who you claim show 'influence' what I've mostly seen is a bunch of Evangelicals with Bible College Educations making assertions about this, but not actually providing any primary sources which can confirm this is the case.

Bottom line: If one does not want to have Christianity seen as having significant influence in Indian culture before other religions because of their own bias, any reason will suffice to be brought forward.

I'm sure that statement makes sense to you, but I can't make heads or tails out of it.

 

[smaneck]

Claiming Pure Land Buddhism to be rooted in the Bodhisattva ideal doesn't show where that was either universally the case at any point in the Buddhist worldview - nor does it mean that the AMitabha was originally what Buddhism envisioned and was in any way a means of salvation that somehow predated Christianity.

There is no firm evidence that the Pure Land Sect of Amitabha Buddha preceded Christianity anymore than there is any evidence it was influenced by Christianity.

That said, respectfully, I think it would be wise to cease with the side-argument/false claim of "religious triumphalism" since it's inconsistent when one already tried to claim Buddhism was superior to all other religions and that Christianity took from it.

I didn't see any assertions on his part that Christians took from Buddhism.

Unless wants to actually go back/address what they said, they need to not switch in the middle of discussion or be personal.

Excuse me, but you have been exceedingly personal in your attacks on Yoder. That's why I jumped into this discussion. You were bullying him just as you are now.

 

[smaneck]

This whole debate (and the considerable ire attached to it) seems to stem from the idea that world views need to be "pure" in order to be valid, and that coming into contact with other perspectives is to be seen as a sort of corruption or subjugation.

That's not really where I'm coming from. It seems to be important to Christians do establish that they are the only ones who teach salvation by grace and therefore they feel this need to prove that the Pure Land Sect must have gotten its ideas from Christianity. Whatever I think of their motives I wouldn't object to the thesis if they actually had any evidence for this, but as I've pointed out, their chronology (and in some cases geography) is way off.

What I do think is the case is that there was a new kind of spirituality which seems to be found all over AfroEurasia beginning around the first century AD but really gaining momentum by the fourth century. This new spirituality seems to be trans-ethical, unlike the confessional religions and philosophies which emerged during the Iron Age. We see this spirituality in Buddhism in its Mahayana form, in Christianity (in all its forms), in Hinduism in the Bhakti cults, and in the Mystery cults of the Roman Empire. The emphasis seems to be on salvation based on personal devotion to a deity or supernatural being. I don't like appealing to a Hegelian "spirit of the age" but I think it is an accident that these religions begin to gain strength as the large empires which have held that part of the world together for so long are starting to crumble. The community orientation of the religions and philosophies which proceeded it are giving way to individualistic notions of salvation in a world that is clearly descending to the nethermost abode.

 

[granpa]

The basic teaching of Buddhism is that cravings cause suffering. Cravings are not the same as desires. Desires are normal and healthy and do not cause suffering. You desire things because they are desirable. You crave things because they are forbidden. (Things are forbidden because they are perceived as all bad)

All of our desires trace back to a handful of hard wired drives that we are born with. None of these desires or drives are inherently bad but when one desire conflicts with another then one must find a balance between them. One must learn to channel one's desires but not too dam them up completely as this would result in a neurosis

 

[smaneck]

Another falsehood - but as said before, if that's the best you can do, you're doing just fine ignoring the evidence as well as what the Jewish community has long documented. Jewish people have had to deal with worse, but it is what it is.

Since you're presenting this as a slight to the Jewish people, perhaps Loammi should step in here. Loammi, do you know of any evidence of Jews in China or on the Silk Road during the Persian Empire.

As said before, other scholars have noted that it was during the Tang Dynasty (around the 8th Century) that the earliest groups of Jews came to China via the overland Silk Road

Not disputing that. But the original article you cited was speculating that Jews were going back and forth to China during the Persian Empire and somehow influenced the Eightfold path, a speculation which you apparently took as fact.

- and others noting it to be far earlier that that, especially as it concerns the travels of Monotheism in China (as well as Japan).

Sorry but the appearance of monotheism in either China or Japan is not evidence of Jewish influence. I'm not yet persuaded that what we find there is indeed monotheism, but assuming it is there is another monotheistic tradition which is much closer to them, namely Zoroastrianism and we know that Zoroastrianism traveled the Silk Road this early. We find Zoroastrian tombs among the Uighurs dating 2500 years ago. http://english.cntv.cn/2014/08/12/VIDE1407843119676688.shtml
And as others wisely pointed out:

Abraham’s Ainu ancestors traveled into China.

Abraham's "Ainu ancestors"? Do you really take websites spouting this kind of nonsense seriously?

The Ainu alphabet is almost identical to the Hebrew alphabet.

There is no such thing as an "Ainu alphabet." The Ainu people were hunters and gatherers.

The Ainu have been identified as the “First People” of modern humans by the molecular geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza.
The Ainu were among the aboriginal peoples of the Nile Valley and the rulers of many of the river shrines.

Not what Cavalli-Sforza says. He places the Ainu in his "Northeast and East Asian" genetic cluster, not the Nile Valley. Read his History and Geography of Human Genes. What he writes completely refutes her theories.

One of their shrines was Annu, the original name for Heliopolis (Biblical On), to which the great pyramids were aligned. You will recall that Joseph, son of Jacob, married the daughter of the priest of On (Gen. 41:45). The Chinese alphabet is called Han. This is a variant of Hanu, which is derived from Annu.

None of which have anything to do with the Ainu.

This reminds me of the Hindu nationalist writers who argue that Abraham and Sara are really Brahma and Saraswati.

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2012/07/brahma-and-sarawati-abraham-and-sara.html

​

There have been several places which have covered the issue in documentation for the history of Jews in Asia and their migration long before the 4th century (including the world-wide Jewish body) - be it here (over in the Messianic Judaism section) or here:

Neither Christians or Jews can be shown to have been in China prior to the 4th century, but the speculative article you put up claimed Jews were traveling there during the Persian Empire. So feel free to show me the evidence for this in your sources. That would be around 500 B.C.

As with other ancient communities, it is unclear exactly when the Jews first arrived in China.

Translation: The author of this article doesn't know.

Scholars say that Jews may have come as early as the First Temple period, from the ten Lost Tribes, or during the Talmudic period. At that time, Roman, Persian, and Middle Eastern merchants came to China for trade.

"At that time"? What time are we talking about? The first temple is destroyed more than five hundred years before the founding of the Roman Empire. The Talmudic period doesn't end until five hundred years after that. We are talking about three different periods within a thousand year time span and no evidence exists for their presence in China during any of them.

Jewish merchants may have traveled the Silk Road to Kaifeng to conduct trade and stayed there for better business opportunities.

Notice even for this the key word is 'may.'

There are traces of a Jewish presence beginning at least in the 7th century.

Yep. Seventh century AD, not fifth century BC which is the time of the Persian Empire.

The most enduring community was that in Kaifeng. From the 10th-13th century

You do realize that I've never suggested there were no Jews in China? What I've said is that there is no evidence of them having been there during the Persian Empire. That would be around 500 B.C., not the 7th century, not the 10th century, not the 13th century.

Once again, when you actually cite stuff what you have is either speculation or evidence the runs counter to your assertions. What you don't have are facts that support them.​

 

[smaneck]

The basic teaching of Buddhism is that cravings cause suffering. Cravings are not the same as desires.

I don't think Buddhism makes any distinction between the two.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Claiming that Jodo Shinshu is just a Christianized form of Buddhism has been used to marginalize Japanese-Americans into converting to Christianity for over a hundred years.

Let's also keep in mind that the Pure Land sutras were committed to writing around the first century, and were likely based on earlier oral tradition. To cast the Pure Land sutras into doubt, therefore, is to cast the whole Mahayana canon into doubt.

Seeing that Japanese Americans who grew UP Buddhist never felt pressure to convert and many noted rather plainly why they had no issue with switching over when they actually studied, it is inconsistent trying to say that Jodo Shinshu referencing Christian concepts means Japanese Americans will be marginalized - and it also ignores where other Japanese Americans or Japanese in general have said where Buddhism actually had it where there were forced conversions in their territories. As said before, there has always been significant influence of Christianity on Japanese Buddhism and its development - especially if keeping up with the Hidden Christians of Japan and other similar groups who endured persecution at the hands of Buddhist(more shared here). It has never been a small thing when seeing the Nestorian influences on Early Buddhism...and people are still free to practice Mahayana Buddhism since plenty have said they can see references to Christianity in their own camp and yet still appreciate Buddhist thought. There is no fear for acknowledging intersection or roots

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Uh, you didn't provide any evidence for a Jewish presence in China prior to the Fourth Century. What you do present below is evidence for the a Jewish presence during the Tang Dynasty. Okay, I'll go with that. I got the Sung Dynasty from one of the websites you yourself was claiming as evidence! Only it said something totally different from what you said. And I'm seeing that happen a lot.

As said before, You already noted consistently where you avoided actually dealing with evidence because you neither investigated university resources - or the actual scholars (i.e. Dr. Francis Woods, Dr. Martin Palmer on the issue). If you're going to spread a falsehood, then one can seriously choose to do better than this since there were already Jews present BEFORE the Tang Dynasty and trying go past that is begging the question - as said before.

Youtube does not constitute primary sources.

Bad excuse on your part...

Ignoring the fact of where museum presentations actually deal with either artifacts or addressing the inscriptions from eras at sites (primary), trying to speak on YouTube is a means of poisoning the well since nothing you said shows what was said in video to be inaccurate, just as it would be silly for anyone to claim that a presentation from the Smithsonian on Civil War documents was somehow not "primary" and excuse themselves from actually interacting with the material. This is a basic in academia and you have tried to avoid that simple reality often - although it is really rather pointless.

I see nothing on that website that supports your assertions.

Harping on what you don't feel to be said is not the same as either quoting directly from the website what was off - or showing it to be untrue, as you've only repeatedly tried to make assertions without giving any historical basis - or even academic backing outside of your opinions alone. That will never do for discussion if wanting to be taken seriously.

Then quote me where it does so because I'm really tired of chasing this stuff down only to find it says something totally different than what you state it says.

It is no one's job to do your homework when the fact of the matter is that you've already done Argument By Selective Observation - and it is inconsequential what you either are or are not tired of. That has little to do with the fact that you've already ignored what was shared earlier, so there's no need trying to ask others to bring up the same thing you already admitted multiple postings ago that you didn't even check out - and note, claimining something is totally different than what you state it says" isn't true simply because you repeated it. All you've done at this point is Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Until you can actually quote directly where something is different than what I or others state, you do not have any real case and need to do better.

Where does it say it?

Again, already noted it earlier - either one will deal with it, or they are wasting the time of others.

That sentences doesn't even make sense.

Inconsequential whether or not you're able to comprehend something others had no issue with.

Once again, Youtube videos don't constitute evidence. I won't even waste my time with them. And as for your other sources, every time I check them out they say something totally different, so please provide us with the actual statements there which support your arguments because I sure can't find them.

As said before, your argument is attempt to poison the well - and not academic in light of the fact that people in academia share videos repeatedly when discussing topics and addressing material on the subject, whether documentaries on the history of Puerto Rico or discussing types of animals. Attacking a medium is NOT the same as showing material in the medium to be true - and as you already noted you are not even able (or willing) to address what has been discussed in academia, it is evident you have little basis talking about what material is about since you went into clueless on what was actually said. That is not actually dealing with information - so until you can address that, you are essentially not worth addressing.

Others have spoken rather directly on the issue, starting with Dr. Palmer (who addressed the Jesus Sutras on multiple levels as well as the Nestorian Steel) - more in The Jesus Sutras - Seven Pillars House of Wisdom

So show us where Johnson provides evidence of Christians on the Silk Road meeting Buddhists prior to the 400 A.D. when the Pure Land Sect started.

​

Seeing that it is again the case you've not shown where Johnson or other scholars did not already address the issue of Christians prior to 400, it is again an issue you asserting without actually proving your objection to be true - begging the question.

​

​

LOL. You are the one who is speculating. Your assumption seems to be that since there were Jews in the Persian Empire and the Persian Empire extended to the Indus Valley therefore Jews must have been in North India as well. There are some basic flaws in that line of argument. Just because I live in the US doesn't mean I've ever been to North Dakota. And you do this on the basis of the story of Esther and Mordacai? Assuming the story is historical, it took place in Ecbatana today known as Hamadan in western Iran. That's about 1500 miles away from north India.

One can do better than you have thus far if expecting to be taken seriously since you didn't show that the Persian Empire did not have Jews in North India - and then proceeded to give an argument by making an argument not addressing the issue. It is an Irrelevant Conclusion - not to mention Disingenuous since the fact of the matter is that even secular scholars/academics have noted consistency with Jews in the Persian Empire from a historical perspective when it comes to referencing Esther and Mordacai. Besides the fact that the accuracy of the book has been attested to in differing ways and already covered before with other Jewish believers (as in places such as The Distinctly Jewish Logic of the Bible and Talmud), it is inconsistent speaking on where the story took place since what occurred with Esther in her SPECIFIC situation happened in Iran - but that has nothing to do with showing where Jews were not present in the Indian territory at that time. And as said before, it would behoove you to actually deal with the scholarship in the Jewish world on Jews in North India rather than simply speaking against it. As noted before for basic places for review, one can start with Be'chol Lashon: Population: Asia: Jews of India
:

B'nei Menashe
In northeast India, in the land mass that lies between Myanmar (formerly Burma) and Bangladesh, a small group of people have been practicing Judaism since the early 1970s, having returned to the religion of their ancestors. The B'nei Menashe are Mizo and Kuki tribesmen in Manipur and Mizoram who believe that they are descended from the ancient tribe of Menashe. Evidence shows that after the exile of 722 B.C.E., many Israelites made their way across the Silk Road, ending up in China. The Shinlung tribe, as they were called in China, eventually migrated to Burma and northeast India, losing many of their Jewish customs along the way. Although their “leather scrolls” were destroyed, the B'nei Menashe still held on to their oral history and the poems describing their ancestors crossing the Red Sea. After thousands of years of exile, they have rediscovered their roots and are returning to Judaism.

While over 300 have formally converted to Judaism and many of these have moved to Israel, thousands of others live fully Jewish lives without having yet converted. In a historic decision, Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar has formally recognized the Bnei Menashe community of northeastern India as “descendants of Israel” and has agreed to send a Beit Din on its behalf to the region to formally convert them to Judaism.50 In a recent turn of events, Rabbi Ekstein, founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, has informed the government of Israel that his organization would provide the $8 million to settle the 6,000 Bnei Menashe in Israel, citing the recent certification of authenticity by the Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel. ​

And of course, for further information at Holocaust | The Jews of Iran - Projet ALADIN:

The Jewish community in Iran is among the oldest in the world. The first Jewish settlements near Ekbatana (Hamadan, western Iran) and Susa (southwest Iran) date to 721 BC. Jews fleeing persecution under the rule of the Assyrian King Nabuchadadnezzar II settled in Isfahan around 680BC.

In 539 BC, Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Achaemenian Empire, conquered Babylon and allowed the exiled Jews to go home and reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem. Some chose to remain and a movement of migration deeper into Persia began.

Jews in ancient Persia mostly lived in their own communities. Persian Jewish lived in the ancient (and until the mid-20th century still extant) communities not only of Iran, but of present-day Azerbaijan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and north-western India. Scholars believe that during the peak of the Persian Empire, Jews may have comprised as much as 20% of the population.
​

There is only evidence of one Jewish immigration to India anywhere near the time of the Persian Empire. The Cochin Jews claim that some of their ancestors came after the destruction of the First Temple. If you have evidence of other migrations, please present it in the form of a direct quote, not youtube video or a website which says something totally different.

When you first show ability to actually address primary information regardless of the medium (as you've already avoided that from earlier), then you can speak on information in direct quotes. Thus far, again, you've done neither and have avoided migrations

It is possible that a Roman Jew, perhaps Thomas, started the church in India and it only became Nestorian sometime later. But it did arrive by sea.

No one says sea was not involved, but the routes they took were never by sea alone since they also took trade routes

Yes, I have. You seem to think that posting vids and links that don't support your arguments constitutes 'facts.' They don't. You forget that the history of Persia is my main area of specialty and the main reason I sought a PhD to begin with. I have written articles on Persian Jewry.

Once again, harping on a PhD when you don't even deal with the academic work other scholars have done with Persia and then choose to avoid history when it suits you and focusing on a medium does not show one really deals properly with academia. It is a very bad excuse trying to claim information is not factual because of it being in a link or a video - no more logical than one saying that Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech where he speaks of people being judged by the content of their character is not true when someone actually posts the entire speech up or places a reference to the actual televised speech. It's bad antics and you can do better than that if expecting to be taken seriously or seen as truly respecting what the scholars have already said.

So why don't you do that? Present the evidence, not just videos or links that don't support your case.

When you actually do more than assert you're true just because you say so - despite never giving evidence for any of your verbal assertions - then it is consistent to speak on presenting evidence. Thus far, you have again simply harped without actually giving verification.

When I was a graduate student I was put in charge of organizing a huge collection of photos of Gandharan and Buddhist art, placing t hem in chronological order. It was pretty clear to me.

That has zero to do with showing that you actually did things either correctly or comprehensively, seeing that there are plenty of people in Graduate school who have disagreed with most (if not all) of what you write.

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Whether or not Buddhism was officially aniconic, is not really that relevant. The fact of the matter is that idols of Buddha start appearing only under Hellenistic influence. And the earliest Buddhas are clearly patterned after the Greek god Apollo. They even show Buddha wearing a toga. And btw, the same thing happens in Hinduism which was clearly not aniconic. We still don't see stone idols until after Alexander the Great. We do see smaller idols made out of various materials but not the big stone sculpture.

Talking on Buddhist being aniconic as irrelevant misses the fact of the matter that you alone brought the issue up and it had ZERO to do with the overall topic, as there were Buddahs which were not exclusively based on Hellenistic influence and were present before Hellenism....so again, it's an argument of irrelevancy. You're arguing essentially on a false scenario

​

​

Where is your evidence for a church in northwest India whose history can be traced to antiquity? It has not, btw, ever been historically proven that St. Thomas ever went to India, but I'm willing to concede that it is possible he did.

Already discussed earlier - but as said before, when you cease avoiding things already mentioned and trying to repeat without showing you actually dealt with the matter, then and ONLY then do you have room to discuss. And as said before:

....Historians now generally maintain that St. Thomas must have come first to North-west India, particularly to the kingdom of Gondophoros for preaching gospel probably through silk-route and then seems to have gone back to Jerusalem to attend the Jerusalem council and then he must have taken the sea route from Persian Gulf , probably from Basra to reach Cranganore and preach gospel in south India in 52 AD. However, what has been puzzling the historians is the larger historical context within which the early Christians appeared in coastal Maharashtra and Goa, as is mentioned in ancient literature and testified by the discovery of ancient Christian symbols and artifacts from this region.​

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is on you to show that they were present. Instead what you've shown is that there were Christians in India early on. You have no evidence of their having contacts with Buddhists and the Pure Land Sect doesn't get started in India anyhow. Your evidence for Nestorians in China is three or four centuries after the founding of the Pure Land Sect. As for those "scholars" who you claim show 'influence' what I've mostly seen is a bunch of Evangelicals with Bible College Educations making assertions about this, but not actually providing any primary sources which can confirm this is the case.

Once again, you have an appeal to emotion (as well as appeal to ridicule) since you avoided where the Pure Land Sect in many parts of Indian started only after Nestorian Christians are there - and then proceed with cherry picking to avoid where they were present because you've not actually presented any historical claims (or even references for your argument) - and it is a falsehood to claim Nestorian Christians came 3-4 centuries afterward when avoiding where even secular scholars noted them present before that point. Merely trying to claim incorrectly anyone disagreeing with you on that is "Evangelical" (even though you gave no evidence of such) is a distraction to avoid actually presenting basis case.

Unless you have real facts, it's really a bad use of time for others.

I'm sure that statement makes sense to you, but I can't make heads or tails out of it.

You've already avoided plenty of things which were more than sensible

 

[Yoder777]

I don't think Buddhism makes any distinction between the two.

There is a difference between the natural tendency of self-preservation and the unnatural attachment to the self.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Since you're presenting this as a slight to the Jewish people, perhaps Loammi should step in here. Loammi, do you know of any evidence of Jews in China or on the Silk Road during the Persian Empire.

Seeing that I am Jewish - in addition to living in a Jewish community - it is illogical (as well as a bit rude and a bit discriminatory) trying to do the dynamic of claiming "Well, we need real Jews to speak"...especially after noting directly to you before on background on several occassions as well as with others who've shared here (as seen here , here, here and here ). In the event that it's said that one cannot be Jewish and Christian, one should seriously consider actually dealing with what Jews have said on the issue - and beyond that, one needs to stay focused on the main issue of what was already presented since Jewish scholarship has already been brought up and you avoided that.

Not disputing that. But the original article you cited was speculating that Jews were going back and forth to China during the Persian Empire and somehow influenced the Eightfold path, a speculation which you apparently took as fact.

As you never gave any direct quotes on the issue, you are again speaking begging the question. Where at any point was it shown as speculation apart from what you've claimed.

Sorry but the appearance of monotheism in either China or Japan is not evidence of Jewish influence. I'm not yet persuaded that what we find there is indeed monotheism, but assuming it is there is another monotheistic tradition which is much closer to them, namely Zoroastrianism and we know that Zoroastrianism traveled the Silk Road this early. We find Zoroastrian tombs among the Uighurs dating 2500 years ago. http://english.cntv.cn/2014/08/12/VIDE1407843119676688.shtml

Speaking past where Jewish influence was noted to be present with regards to China and Japan (as it concerns Abrahamic infuence) by historians doesn't make a case for you. You need to actually show where it was not connected.

Not what Cavalli-Sforza says. He places the Ainu in his "Northeast and East Asian" genetic cluster, not the Nile Valley. Read his History and Geography of Human Genes. What he writes completely refutes her theories. None of which have anything to do with the Ainu. This reminds me of the Hindu nationalist writers who argue that Abraham and Sara are really Brahma and Saraswati. http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2012/07/brahma-and-sarawati-abraham-and-sara.html

​

Seeing that Cavalli was already dismissed on a number of things with his thesis, nothing has been shown conclusively in his theories to be correct on the issue - and of course, there are several others who've long spoken on the issue within the Jewish world when it comes to the actual culture of the Ainu. There's already the work of Dr. Jenichiro Oyabe, author of “Origin of Japan and the Japanese.” As noted elsewhere:

The origin of the Japanese is traced to the Hebrew race by Dr. Jenichiro Oyabe, author of “Origin of Japan and the Japanese.”

Dr. Oyabe asserted in an interview with a representative of the “Japan Advertiser” that the Japanese Emperor is the descendant of the tribe Gad, one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The book was placed on the market this spring and has already gone to the sixth edition. Dr. Oyabe presented volumes to the Emperor, the Empress and the Empress Dowager. The books were immediately accepted by the Imperial Household Department and placed before the Imperial Family. Dr. Oyabe is a graduate of the Divinity School of Yale University. Upon graduation he traveled widely. He lived among the Ainu for more than ten years to trace the origin of the Japanese race.


“The annual festival of the Gion Shrine in Kyoto on July 17 is an interesting subject of study,” said Dr. Oyabe. “It is on this occasion that shrine festivals take place in all parts of the country. Mikoshi, or miniature portable shrines are then often carried into the water. The custom may be traced back to the age of Noah. It was on July 17, according to the Old Testament, that Noah’s ark arrived at Mt. Arrarat, Togarma, Armenia, when the flood subsided.

“The passengers of the ark offered thanksgiving to their god with dancing and music. The sacred casket containing religious objects of the Hebrew people, which is known as the ‘Ark,’ is the prototype of the mikoshi. The Old Testament states that the water was divided when the Ark was carried into the water. The carrying of mikoshi into the water on the occasion of a Shinto festival is traced to this tradition.

TOGARMA IS TAKAMAGAHARA
“Togarma, Armenia, in which Mt. Arrarat is situated, is the Takamakahara, from which the ancestor of the Japanese race is said to have descended. Takamagahara means the Plain of High Heaven. The ‘Arme’ in Armenia means heaven, and the ‘nia’ means place. There is also a palace in the neighborhood of Togarma called Hara. The Jewish people claim that the district is their birthplace, and the Japanese peolpe also claim that the Takamagahara is the birthplace of their ancestors. I can testify to the identity of Togarma, Armenia, as Takamagahara by producing countless evidence.

“The River Jordan was the river of purification. It was in this river that the Israelites purified themselves before they observed religious ceremonies. Izanami-no Mikoto and Izanagino-Mikoto performed the same rite in Huga. Until the Meiji Restoration, the Imperial messengers to the Grand Shrine of Ise observed purification rites in the River Watarai before they reached the shrine. It is for this reason that the river was known as Misogigawa or the River of Purification.

“No scholar or Shinto priest seems to know why the Shinto shrine is built of cypress. The Meiji Shrine was built of lumber from 5,500 cypress logs. Old shrines now existent in Japan are all of cypress. The fifth and seventh chapters of Samuel in the Old Testament make some references to the King living in a house made of cypress. David ordered his son, Solomon, to build a shrine for the first time, and I have good reason to believe that the shrine was built of cypress. The shrine was thirty feet with an entrance fifteen feet wide. This detail is exactly that of the Japanese shrine. It has also the haiden (place of worship) and the okuden (holy of holies) of the Japanese shrine.

“The main columns on both sides which support the beams of the shrine building were driven into the ground instead of being placed in a base of stones or other solid materials. This custom originated in the age in which the Israelites lived in tents. The two columns correspond to the two main poles supporting both sides of the tent. You will find that all the main

​

And of course, if wanting to actually deal with further information on the issue as it concerns ancestry, as said best in
Taka-ma-HARA, or High HARA — the celestial shining mountain peak; the Japanese elixir field; the navel-belly of the earth finds cognates elsewhere (Comparative etymology) ..- Heritage of Japan:

We hear the word “tera” used and echoed as the word for Japanese temple (not shrine, implying the formation of the concept was already in the context of the crucibles of Buddhism and key Central Asian thought of the times)… and though the word is given Chinese form, its Iranian sound has no equivalent in Chinese words “shi” or “miao” for temple.

The word Taka-ma-ga-hara takes on even deeper meaning, when you consider that Taka in Japanese means High Hara, and is also synonymous with ‘plain’, and ‘taira’ is also the Japanese word for ‘plain’. Taka-ma-ga-hara is thought of in Japan as the Celestial Plains, and the celestial plains are to be found on earth in Japan as well as Mount Hara, just as the metaphysical Hara-Benzeitis or Alburzes are also physical places on earth to the Iranians, just as Mt Meru (or Sumeru) is for the Hindus and Buddhists.

The word also occurs among the Greeks, and in the Greek language, it is found as the Har or Hor signifying a mountain See Jacob Bryant’s “A New System or an Analysis of Ancient Mythology“. There is also another European (Germanic-Swabian-Suebi peoples who were an Elbe Germanic tribe whose origin was near the Baltic Sea or the today, the term “Swabian Sea” known to the Romans as the Mare Suebicum) equivalent of High Harz in theHochharz) – the Harz; Hardt, Hart mountains and Alburz has its equivalent in River Elbe. Hara thus finds a close cognate inHarz which is the highest mountain range in Northern Germany, the name Harz derives from the Middle High German word Hardt or Hart (mountain forest), Latinized as Hercynia. The common etymology and meanings of the words Hara, Harz Terak-Tera-Dtaira-Daira, etc. suggests the origin of the Takamagahara cosmology may have originated from tribal migrants nostalgic for these mountains.

We might also wish to factor mountains in Armenia or Mesopotamia further afield to Mt Hermon which is essentially Hara-mun, a mountain significant to both key Druze communities as well as Hebrew tribes connected to the Books of Chronicles and Enoch lineages. The Vulgata renders the Hebrew hārəy Ǎrārāṭ asmontes Armeniae, so we have another Harae-Ararat named for the peak that is associated with the Biblical Mountains of Ararat where Noah’s Ark came to rest after the great flood(Genesis 8:4). This association of Mount Ararat with the biblical mountains is ancient, entering Western Christianity in the fourth century, with Jerome‘s reading of Josephus.

Alternatively, “Togarma, Armenia, in which Mt. Arrarat is situated, is the Takamakahara, from which the ancestor of the Japanese race is said to have descended. Takamagahara means the Plain of High Heaven” … this observation was been made by Dr. Jenichiro Oyabe, author of “Origin of Japan and the Japanese and who attributed Togarma as the founder of the Japanese (and therefore regarded the Japanese to be descendants of the Hebrew race). The Biblical Togarmah was held to be the ancestor of the peoples of the South Caucasus: (the Georgians, the Armenians) and some Turkic peoples; Others (Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100 AD), Roman Catholic priest Jerome (c. 347 – 420 AD) and Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 636 AD)) regarded Togarmah as regarded Togarmah as the father of the Phrygians. Cognates are found in the Greek Thargamos and in the Hittite Bronze Age kingdom of Tegarama in Anatolia; or with the Assyrian Til-Garimmu (the city was inhabited during the Old Assyrian Kingdom and Hittite Empire).

Armenians call themselves Hayer and their county Hayastan (the land of the Hayasa) after their founder Haik, who according to Moses of Chorene was son of Togarmah. In the past the country was historically called by natives Metz Hayk/Hayq (Greater Armenia) and Poqr Hayk/Hayq (Lesser Armenia). Armenian Moses of Chorene and also Georgian Leonti Mroveli regarded Togarmah as the founder of their nations along with other Caucasian people.

Mount Hermon (Haramun /Hebrew: Har Hermon)
However, we still see the best fit for Takama- ga-hara in the Iranian High Hara, or Taka-Hara, closest in meaning and sound. We do not discount the possibility, however, that as the Iranian plateau was a receiver of genetic inputs from various directions, the Iranian concept of High Hara, is derived from either the Hittite or Hebrew Togarma-Haya or alternatively, an Indo-European/Aryan/Hittite/Hebrew ancestral source of all the related groups (see Colin Renfrew’s latest hypothesis “Beyond the Silk Road”), we might triangulate the Hara mountain legends and names to the general area of the Indo-European-Indo-Iranian-Armenian mountain chains, around Zagros.

Furthermore, Ama-terasu can be surmised to mean the Celestial Shining goddess of the Terak peak or plain.

Genetically, we find it hard to accept that the Japanese are descended from the Hebrew race, as neither Y-DNA haplogroup J nor R1a1 haplogroups are found anywhere among the Japanese people. We do however, find Y-DNA D (with the YAP+ alleles) in great abundance among the Japanese. And they are found among the Arab Yemeni and Israeli Druids, in the Kalasha (who say they are descended from Alexander the Great, the Macedonian) who live in the Hindukush valley, as well as in tribal Yunnan along with Xinjiang, in the Southwest of China were the receiving point for many groups from the West. We also find among the Japanese royal and elite historical clans traces of N and Q and R1b1b haplogroups which may suggest a migratory history to some extent in common with Hunnic (Mongol-Turk?) lineages of the Ashina, Khazaria and Getae-Rajput peoples. Note: Y-DNA haplogroups of proto-Turks are N and Q. 800 BCE Ural-Altay languages speaking Turks occupied Central Asia and assimilated some of the R1b and R1a (Caucasian? Tocharians, Sogdians etc.) In the meantime they were also mixed with C3 and O haplogroups due to their relations with Mongol and Chinese people. So, when Oguz tribes migrated to Anatolia they were already formed by Q, N, C3, O, R1a, R1b. In addition to these groups today Turkish population includes J1, J2, Anatolian R1b, R1a, G, E1b.​

For further reference, one can go here to DNA analyses and inferred genetic origins of the Ainu..Or here:

• Origins of the Jomon, Jomon connections with the continent
• Who are the Ainu people? | Heritage of Japan

Neither Christians or Jews can be shown to have been in China prior to the 4th century, but the speculative article you put up claimed Jews were traveling there during the Persian Empire. So feel free to show me the evidence for this in your sources. That would be around 500 B.C.

You again avoided the fact that you already skipped over the actions of Nestorian Christians in the 2nd century of China - but as said before, it is not assumed you're really able to demonstrate that you can investigate it (which is unfortunate).

Translation: The author of this article doesn't know.

Which in translation of your response would be "I dislike it, therefore I resort to appealing to ridicule"

"At that time"? What time are we talking about? The first temple is destroyed more than five hundred years before the founding of the Roman Empire. The Talmudic period doesn't end until five hundred years after that. We are talking about three different periods within a thousand year time span and no evidence exists for their presence in China during any of them.

​

They already specified the timeframe - and as said before, there is grasping for straws at this point on your point

Notice even for this the key word is 'may.'

​

And as other historians have noted, 'may' has often been debated to 'most likely' with filling in the gaps.

You do realize that I've never suggested there were no Jews in China? What I've said is that there is no evidence of them having been there during the Persian Empire. That would be around 500 B.C., not the 7th century, not the 10th century, not the 13th century.

Once again, when you actually cite stuff what you have is either speculation or evidence the runs counter to your assertions. What you don't have are facts that support them.​

Seeing that no one claimed you said no Jews were in China, there's no need arguing against what no one stated - and as said before, speaking about them not being in the Persian Empire or asserting that them being in other empires is automatically taken to mean one wrongly claims "Persian Empire" (when that was YOUR assertion)...that is pointless. When you actually speak on material, you need to actually quote it rather than simply harp since you're already arguing with what was never stated and then trying to act as if that was the argument - but that doesn't work with people who pay attention.

[

There is no firm evidence that the Pure Land Sect of Amitabha Buddha preceded Christianity anymore than there is any evidence it was influenced by Christianity.

And again, arguments by cherry-picking do not advance your case when you already avoid the reality of what scholarship has said on the issue - regardless of attempt to disrespect it because you disagree with it.

I didn't see any assertions on his part that Christians took from Buddhism.

Again, irrelevant to making a point since it doesn't show that in any quotes.

Excuse me, but you have been exceedingly personal in your attacks on Yoder. That's why I jumped into this discussion. You were bullying him just as you are now.

[/QUOTE]Pause, seeing that you already chose to be personal despite the fact that no one was speaking to you originally - thus meaning you entered into things with arguments via appeal to emotions. As it is, discussing "bullying" is pointless since the same has been said of you consistently when it comes to anything disagreeing with your own stances against Christianity - and having strong disagreement/questioning what another says isn't automatically off unless it happens to be when it fits since both of you were questioning another who said he used to do Buddhism but chose to not do so anymore - and not surprising, it was in regards to him saying he was going more so toward Christianity (as noted http://www.christianforums.com/threads/buddhism-neither-theistic-nor-atheistic.7893118/page-6#post-68144229 and http://www.christianforums.com/threads/buddhism-neither-theistic-nor-atheistic.7893118/page-6#post-68144386 ). If you said nothing at those points, then I have to wonder why it suddenly becomes an issue the moment you see someone equally spoken to. Be consistent please if you're going to be taken seriously

That said, until you can actually address what has already been noted instead of arguing around it, it really is best for you to be on ignore until you take the matter seriously with addressing academia for what it is. For it is not a good use of time to do otherwise - and if you keep responding, I hope you do realize that you are essentially arguing with yourself. Shalom

 

[gord44]

I am trying to figure out where Smaneck said anything 'anti-semetic'. That doesn't seem like her style at all.

 

[smaneck]

I am trying to figure out where Smaneck said anything 'anti-semetic'. That doesn't seem like her style at all.

I didn't. I simply raised the same issue most Jews raise, namely whether Messianic Jews are really Jews at all, especially those who weren't raised Jewish. I can sympathize with a Jew who converts to Christianity but wishes to keep the laws of the Torah. But for someone from the outside who believes in Christ and yet insists on appropriating the Jew's religions doesn't strike me as right. It would be like me claiming to be Muslim (in anything but the generic sense.) And contrary to what Armenian John thinks, we don't do that.
I'm not the one disrespecting Judaism here. But this is really off topic. I only mentioned it because G2 insisted on presenting himself as authority on what Jews believe by virtue of supposedly being one. Let's let Loammi weigh in here, if we are going to continue down this road.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am trying to figure out where Smaneck said anything 'anti-semetic'. That doesn't seem like her style at all.

Anytime someone tries to say to those who are Jewish (in Jewish communities - be it Jewish Christian or secular Jewish) that they are not a Jewish, then that goes into the camp of disrespect for ethnicity. It's rather silly for anyone to try honing into Jews not being Jewish because of a belief in Christ as a Messiah/being Divine since that is something others have often brought attention to in the Jewish world. The issue has been discussed repeatedly within the Jewish world when it comes to Jewish communities in the non-Christian realm noting there is nothing non-Jewish on believing Christ to be the Messiah. Some of this has been discussed more in-depth elsewhere in discussion - if going here:

Besides that, there's also here for reference:

For anyone interested,


Here's an interesting perspective from a non-believing Jewish scholar I came across from one of my Jewish friends and it was really on point - by Dr. Benjamin D. Sommer..

• Jewish Professor speaks about the Incarnation of Jesus: Is it really a non Jewish concept? | ???? ??????? ???????

“When the New Testament talks about Jesus as being some sort of small scale human manifestation of God, it sounds to Jews so utterly pagan, but what I’m suggesting is perhaps the radical idea for us Jews that in fact, it’s not so pagan. That in fact, there was a monotheistic version of this that existed already in the Tanakh. And that the Christian idea, that Jesus, or ‘The Logos’, The Word, as the Gospel of John describes it in it’s opening verses, that the presence of The Word or Jesus in fleshly form – in a human body on the planet earth – is actually God making God self accessible to humanity in a kind of avatar. This is what we were seeing in the ‘J’ and ‘E’ texts [differing Hebrew manuscripts]. This is much less radical than it sounds. Or when the Gospel of John describes God’s Self as coming down and overlapping with Jesus – which is a famous passage early in the Gospel of John – that is actually a fairly old ancient near eastern idea of the reality, or self, of one deity overlapping with some other being. So, this is not just Greek paganism sort of just smoothed on to a Jewish mold, which is a way that a lot of Jews tend to view Christianity. This is actually an old ancient near eastern idea, that is an old semitic idea, that is popping up again among those Jews who were the founders of Christianity. We Jews have always tended to sort of make fun of the trinity. ‘Oh how can there be three that is one? If they’ve got this three part God, even if they call it a triune God, a God that is three yet one, really, really, they are pagans. They are not really monotheists like we Jews are or like the Muslims are. Those Christians are really pagan.’ But I think what we are seeing in the idea of the trinity that there is this one God who manifests Itself in three different ways, that’s actually an old ancient near eastern idea that could function in a polytheistic context as it did for the Babylonians and Canaanites, but it can also function in a monotheistic context as it does I think in the ‘J’ and ‘E’ texts. "​

​

• Review: The Bodies of God by Benjamin Sommer | Charles Halton

• https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/benjamin-d-sommer-on-gods-body/

The excerpt is from Dr. Sommer's second book entitled The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel

​

An excellent review of the Apostle Paul by Daniel Boyarin entitled "A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity - Daniel Boyarin - Google Books ) - as discussed in ", A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity" ( Two Radical Jews a review article of Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity by N.T. Wright )

For an excerpt of it, one can go here:

• 
  Daniel Boyarin – A Radical Jew: Paul And The Politics Of Identity (Chap. 9: Paul, the "jewish Problem," and the "Woman Question") | Poetry Genius

20th Anniversary Lecture, Judaic Studies: Daniel Boyarin: No 'Judaism' In Josephus - YouTube​

Much of the issue itself (when understanding things historically) goes back to seeing what the early Church had to address when it came to how Jewish believers (in the first century before the councils) had battles as it concerns the reality of the Two Powers in Heaven idea that helped many Jews come to faith in Christ and develop a Christological Monotheism since they could understand that the rabbis always taught that God had a lesser power to Him (regent) who was God as well and they co-ruled - with Christ being "The King of Angels"/Lord of Hosts. Many are not aware of the relationships between rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism, and early Christianity - as it was the case that "Two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity...yet they did not understand the reality of what Christianity advocated on the role of the Messiah nor did they know the history of what the rabbis before them had already said in agreement with the Messiah being Divine. One Jewish scholar who did an amazing job on the issue is Daniel Boyarin, who wrote Sparks of the Logos: Essays in Rabbinic Hermeneutics and Two Powers in Heaven; Or the Making of Heresy as well as the book entitled Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (as well as The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John and the work "The Jewish Gospels" where he noted at multiple points where the concept of the Messiah was always rooted in Jewish thought and echoed by what the rabbis said....and for Jews, the two powers are one and a person does not worship one without the other and even Second Temple literature is replete with forms of bitheism, including the philonic logos and the Ezekiel traditions of an Angel of God in the image of a man appearing on the throne. - that Angel of God being representative of the Divine Messiah who was to come).

Dr. Daniel Boyarin has noted the issues pertaining to Global Judaism and the community acknowledging Jews who believe in Christ and the validity of doing so - no different than what other scholars have noted such as Harvey Faulk when he discussed the ways Christ was a Pharisee:

• Jesus Kept Kosher (Prof. Daniel Boyarin) - Jewish Studies
  
  
• Jesus Kept Kosher: The Jewish Christ of the Gospel of Mark - Tikkun International ...

As it concerns my own background, that was shared before in explicit detail - both with smaneck (As seen here and here / here) and elsewhere , I have made no secret of my living life with other Jews - as well as being Jewish (on my great-grandfather's side, through his mother - as there was a Jewish rabbi in the family) while also being Black Hispanic (complicated) - and this is something that always has to be kept in mind when it comes to identity. People act as if you cannot be 3 differing ethnic groups at once - but that generally comes from an ignorance of culture and who people are....and this is something even secular Jews have noted before. And on Judaism discussing the issue of identity via both father and mother, some good places for basic information can be found here:

• A Patriarchy Is, After All, a Patriarchy | Reform Judaism

For a brief excerpt from one prominent Jewish resource - Who Is A Jew | The Half-Jewish Network: Welcoming Adult Children & Grandchildren of Intermarriage..:
:

THE HEBREW BIBLE ON THE QUESTION

Intermarriage is described in two completely conflicting ways in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament). On the one hand, some stories and commandments explicitly forbid intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-5), and these attitudes result in the exile or death of children of intermarriage. Example of this approach are contained in Leviticus 24:10-23, Ezra 9:1-3 and Ezra 10:1-44.

Other stories in the Tanach suggest that intermarriage is OK, and that the children and grandchildren of intermarriage are good for Judaism. Two examples of this approach are the Biblical books of Ruth and Esther.

Many of the stories in the Tanach appear to suggest that a person in Biblical Israel was considered to be a Jew if that person had a Jewish mother or a Jewish father, and was raised as a Jew. On the other hand, some hereditary honors, such as rank as a Cohen or a Levite, passed to offspring only through a Jewish father, leading some historians to believe that the Biblical Jews actually followed only patrilineal descent.

The Hebrew Bible, therefore, reflects multiple views of intermarriage and the Jewish status of half-Jewish people.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Christian New Testament has a more unified approach to half-Jewish people. St. Timothy, a follower of St. Paul, had a Jewish mother and grandmother who converted to Christianity and a pagan Greek father. He was circumcised as an adult simply to avoid trouble with the Jewish communities that he and St. Paul visited (Acts 16:3) because many Jews knew that St. Timothy’s father was a Greek.

The primary rule for Christianity’s treatment was laid down in the epistles of St. Paul, who argued that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

St. Paul urged Christians married to “unbelievers” to remain in those intermarriages because “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” (I Corinthians 7:14, NIV Version). See “Christianity” within this essay for more information about the history of Christians and half-Jewish people.

THE TALMUDIC MATRILINEAL RULE

At some point in the Roman Empire era, when the Talmud, the original code of Jewish religious law, was being assembled, the Jewish rabbinic elite apparently changed the Jewish descent rules to a matrilineal rule — only the child of a Jewish mother, or the grandchild of a maternal Jewish grandmother, etc., would be considered to be a “real” Jew.

Erroneous Jewish folklore claims that: (1) it was done to protect Jewish women raped by non-Jews or (2) that the change was made because the identity of the child’s mother was usually known in pre-scientific eras, but the true biological father’s identity could be concealed. However, there does not appear to be any scholarly support for these folk myths.

There are many speculations on why the Talmudic rabbis adopted matrilineal descent, but none of them appear conclusive. The Talmudic rabbis apparently imposed an interpretation on Deuteronomy 7:3-5 that reinterprets the plain sense of the passage — a direct ban on all intermarriages — to work in recognition of matrilineal descent that does not appear in the original language. It is not known why they did this. One strand of scholarship suggests that this was done to reflect Roman civil law, where the status of the mother determined the child’s status. The Jews were ruled by the Romans during the Talmudic era.

MATRILINEAL RULE OFTEN IGNORED

A close reading of Jewish history shows that matrilineal descent was never accepted and practiced 100% — for example, the ancient Jewish communities of Kaifeng, China and possibly Ethiopia are thought to have begun when male Jewish traders settled in those countries, married local women, and began raising families.

Some communities openly accepted a patrilineal rule for “who is a Jew?” instead of a matrilineal rule. Both the Jews of the Karaite sect and the Jews of Kaifeng, China, followed patrilineal instead of matrilineal descent. Jewish communities frequently ignored the matrilineal descent rule when it was convenient.

In medieval Spain, some Jewish men, emulating their Muslim neighbors, kept multiple wives who were Jewish, Christian and Muslim, and the children seem to have been raised as Jews.

Many 20th century pre-Holocaust Jewish communities in Europe and America seem to have openly or covertly ignored the matrilineal rule and treated some Jewish-identified offspring of intermarriage as Jews, or as partly-Jewish Christians, regardless of whether they had a Jewish mother or a Jewish father.

For example, Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, was married to Julie Naschauer, who was apparently the patrilineal granddaughter of an intermarriage. Though raised as a Jew, she was probably not Jewish according to the matrilineal descent rule, making her three children by Herzl patrilineal great-grandchildren of intermarriage, and non-Jews in the eyes of the Israeli state that he helped found.

Ironically, two of Herzl’s three children and his one grandchild are buried near him in Israel, despite Orthodox rules against the burial of patrilineals in Jewish cemeteries, while thousands of patrilineals currently living in Israel are told that they will never be buried inside Jewish cemeteries unless they convert to Orthodox Judaism.​

And where it has been discussed before in more depth, as said previously:

• Was Joshua a Gentile?
  
  
• Who is a Jew? From our older son....

If your going to go by Judaism your going to have to believe that 1) Asenath coverted, according to the apocryphal book of Joseph and Asenath, and/or 2) that Asenath was actually the daughter of Dinah, when she was raped by Shechem.

This is how modern Judaism views the 'Jewishness' of Ephraim and Manasseh. Mom was a convert, or was Jewish to begin with.

Do you have any difinative documentation of this? I tend to agree, as modern Judaism on one hand tends to project it's theology back to the beginnings (i.e. oral Torah from Mt. Sinai), then on the other tends to state they evolve traditions throughout time (Talmud). You can't have it both ways. Either Judaism was/is matrilineal, or it wasn't at one time, and now is. It can't have been from the beginning yet evolved that way over time. Which is it?

That said, It's always bizzare whenever someone not Jewish tries to say to those who are actually Jewish that others are somehow stealing something because they either believe in Christ - or they grew up originally in Gentile culture but then later lived in Jewish communities (as was the case with God-fearers in Judaism or converts). It is no different than someone who is Caucasian claiming they know what it means to be Black more than Black people (or those whom Blacks accept into Black culture) and then trying to say "Oh - you guys aren't really black - lets find a real black person!" .....because they can't deal with where their stereotype is not accurate. ...or trying to find Black people agreeing with them as if that matters (like finding a Conservative Black individual to agree with a Conservative Caucasian perspective that says Liberal Blacks aren't black).

Other Messianic Jews such as ContraMundum have often called out some of the same issues here whenever she has tried to go after Jews believing in Christ and insisting they are not Jewish (more here and here and here) - and as Contra noted, it tends to be the case that anything advocated by Christians is what she tries to insult without being able to see where she does so.

Of course it is a side-topic that doesn't need to be delved into deeply since it was thrown out of nowhere that someone either Messianic Jewish or Jewish Christian was not Jewish and needed to change an icon (as indicated when it was said "Sorry, all this time I've thought you were an African-American Christian. In fact your faith tag identifies you as a Christian. You may want to go and change it quick!...You realize that the 'one drop' rule doesn't apply to Judaism?" ) - as that was essentially passive-aggressive commentary not even on topic. Due to the fact that smaneck already avoided dealing with the scholarship in existence on Chinese Jews, it was already an issue of the individual claiming to be authority on the issue of what Jews believe - as well as discriminatory when avoiding those who are Jewish.

If she wants to disagree with information, that's one thing - but it gets out of line when one tries to speak to Jews claiming they are not Jews ....and the same thing goes with dismissing what Chinese Jews have long noted in scholarship on the history of the Jewish community in China. For as it is, there has been different evidence showing different dates of the first arrival of Jews to China since the oral tradition of the Jews sets the first immigration between the years 206 B.C.E. and 221 B.C.E. during the ruling of the Han dynasty. More specifically, there are a few scholars believing that Jews came to China as early as the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.) while some even go so far as to place their arrival earlier, during the Zhou Dynasty (around the 6th Century B.C.)..

For reference on the issue

• chinesejews - Randolph College

• China Virtual Jewish History Tour | Jewish Virtual Library

• Jews in China more than a millennium ago - Purple Motes

• Detailed History of Kaifeng Jews - The Sino-Judaic Institute

• Judaism and the Gentile Faiths: Comparative Studies in Religion By Joseph P. Schultz