Proof of the Buddha's Existence

[Dhammakid]

The three sources of historical documentation of Christ are exactly what I was referring to when I said the few sources of his existence are known to be unreliable. I'm no historian so I can't back that up...

Well, asking for a link supporting such a claim deviates us from Buddhism a bit too much, so instead I will simply remark that blind skepticism is similar to blind faith, and skepticism about the existence of historical persons who have robust documentation is simply excessive; if the standards of the international community of historians aren't considered valid, the conversation becomes difficult to accomplish.



P.S. There is no historical proof of Christ. There is only historical proof of Jesus. Remember to differentiate hagiography from history.

We definitely have different understandings of what constitutes "robust documentation." The three sources we both have discussed concerning Jesus are the only three I know to exist.

And as for your p.s. - I have already stated this, that there may be evidence for a person named Jesus who lived at that time, but that proves nothing about the Christ his followers claim to be god.


Dhammakid

[Sobeh]

We definitely have different understandings of what constitutes "robust documentation." The three sources we both have discussed concerning Jesus are the only three I know to exist.

To those three, add Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. This is, of course, alongside the gospels and epistles and apocrypha and agrapha... they all point to Jesus the man. It's simply the best sort of historical fact there can be, and disagreeing with it is disagreeing with the discipline of history altogether. The documents are not held in question the way you seem to think they are.

[Dhammakid]

We definitely have different understandings of what constitutes "robust documentation." The three sources we both have discussed concerning Jesus are the only three I know to exist.

To those three, add Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. This is, of course, alongside the gospels and epistles and apocrypha and agrapha... they all point to Jesus the man. It's simply the best sort of historical fact there can be, and disagreeing with it is disagreeing with the discipline of history altogether. The documents are not held in question the way you seem to think they are.

I beg to differ. But since I'm no historian, I'll leave it to you to do your own research. All I can say is the dialogue about the authenticity of the documents mentioned is pretty big right now. I would encourage you to look into it and let me know what you think. Again, I will mention the evidence that the whole life story of Jesus is plagiarized from sun god worship and the pagan beliefs of various cultures throughout history. I am definitely not convinced that there's as much agreement as you claim.

I digress on the topic of Jesus. I feel, from all the responses here, that the important thing for me to remember when looking for proof of the Buddha's existence is that any historical documents and relics are subject to individual interpretation, as well as the fact that record-keeping wasn't then what it is now. From reading the discussion on the linked thread, it seems actual documents have many drawbacks that oral traditions don't, although I guess the same can be said for the other way around.


Dhammakid

[Sobeh]

Well, try this site to get a nice summary position.

In the end, however, you simply don't seem able to sustain the difference between hagiography and history; "the whole life story of Jesus is plagiarized from sun god worship" is referring to hagiography, not the historical person. Keep these straight, else you will continually be confused about how historical evidence differs from religious evidence.

[Dhammakid]

Well, try this site to get a nice summary position.

In the end, however, you simply don't seem able to sustain the difference between hagiography and history; "the whole life story of Jesus is plagiarized from sun god worship" is referring to hagiography, not the historical person. Keep these straight, else you will continually be confused about how historical evidence differs from religious evidence.

Thanks for the link, I will look it over.

I may have confused my wording, but I'm not confused as to what your point is. I've disputed the authenticity of the documents you mentioned as well as the evidence for religious belief in Jesus. I've stated that there are researchers who don't accept the documents as proof of Jesus' existence, but of course I realize there are historians who do. Two sides to every coin I suppose.

(EDIT: Good link. Provides a thorough presentation of both sides and enough links and reading to keep me busy for a while. Thanks again.)


Dhammakid