I guess my Lohan post just went past everyone. Maybe it was the Marco Polo part. Polo has been included in the Lohan according to some references, but that’s really obscure. Jesus however is often included among the 500 lohan. In fact, in the temple of four directions across form Shaolin Temple, they have a 500 lohan collection and amongst them is a lamb holding caucasian.
Soooo, while everyone debates whether Jesus went to study under Buddhists, the Buddhist take is that he was a lohan, just one that manifested in the West, and a minor one at that (the 18 are the major.) Now take this the next logical step. If one minor lohan could have so much impact on the western world, imagine the effect of the other 499 on China…
…I posted the link to our back issues sales. I did a four part series with Shaolin Monk Shi Guolin that revealed the entire Xiao Lohan form. Throughout the series, I define and describe the Lohan in the introduction. All 18 Lohan are represented - I used the Lohan images from Baimasi - White Horse Temple near Shaolin. The article series was sort of a FAQ response from me about Lohan, plus, of course, the traditional lohan form from as executed Shaolin monk. JA 2001 SO 2001 ND 2001 JF 2002
Originally posted by GeneChing I guess my Lohan post just went past everyone… If one minor lohan could have so much impact on the western world, imagine the effect of the other 499 on China…
I think the reason no one here is too excited about that proposition is that it requires implicitly believing the Buddhist metaphysics.
MK beat me to the reply on that ‘marriage at cana’ thing. Good job! A decent book to check is “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”.
WRT possible infl. of buddhism, et al on christ… can’t say for certain, but there is the case of John the Baptist, who he most certainly visited… his location was, or possibly later became, Basra, in Iraq, which is right on the border of Iran at the top of the gulf [in case you didn’t watch the war stuff].
The Iranians/Persians were Zoroastrians, which influenced Buddhism. Its also possible that some Persians were Buddhist. Further, most of the early prophets tombs are located and still venerated in Iran, not anywhere near Israel. The Holy Land is the entire region, not just Israel.
Anyhow, Jesus was a capricorn. Yippity fwippity, who cares I’m out.
Originally posted by Ben Gash Chris, I should clarify that I do believe in the virgin birth, it’s the continued virginity of Mary I don’t believe in.
Yeah, there are Orthodox who feel the same way, as it wasn’t introduced as a formal doctrine until relatively late (I believe after the schism with the Orthodox). Although there are other Orthodox who argue from the content of early homilies that it was still a regularly held belief within the early church, even if it wasn’t a formal doctrine (the eastern churches in general have never been as big on making formal doctrines as are the western churches, perhaps for having been removed from the rationalist movement and it’s legalist roots). I don’t know enough history to assess either argument critically. For my own personal beliefs, it strikes me as something which has little impact either way, so I tend not to think about it at all. BTW, I’m a Byzantine, not a Roman, in affiliation.
“Jewish customs of Jesus’ day required married Rabbis”
Paul was a respected and highly traditional Rabbi. It states quite categorically that he wasn’t married.
You know MK, there are an awful lot of “some’s” and “possibles” and references to sources three hundred years after the fact in that post :rolleyes:
Chris, this is what I mean about theology.
I don’t mean to be narcy, but it does annoy me when people throw theory at you as fact. All you’ve really said is that some people have a theory with little material evidence, and then claimed that your position is unassailible and the burden of proof lies with me:confused:
The joys of enlightened rationalism :rolleyes:
not sure if anyone can validate this, but my old classic Greek prof (he’s cert’ed to teach classic Greek, Latin, French and one other language at the college level) once said in class that the original term applied to Mary from which the virgin birth was sourced didn’t necessitate virginity, rather that it meant something more along the lines of “young woman.”
Chris, surely Jesus was uniquely man and God, at once wholly human and wholly God? Hence virgin birth, hence John 3:16, hence trinity, hence Emmanuel (God amongst us).
As far as I’m aware the deification of Mary in the Catholic church stems from the period of the black death. Faced with an aggressive illness with an 80% fatality rate, some felt that Christ was angry and only Mary could appease him (you’ve just gotta love that theology).
Where the eternal virgin thing came from I don’t know (but then Catholics always seem to have strange attitudes about sex). The Catholic explanation of James is always a good laugh though
I heard a good thing about theology tonight. When the serpent tempted Eve, he did it by encouraging her to question God’s nature.
MK, 7 clean and 2 unclean why?
“My point is that you should not get so caught up in the words that you miss the message”
After the mass great spiel you just gave about possible interpretations of words? Trust me, I’m more than OK with the message.
Rub the Buddha, that is in itself true, and a common rationalist argument. However, contextually it can only be applied to the prophecies of Isiah “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”
In the gospel of Matthew, it is far more specific about Mary’s condition. 1:20 “…for that which is concieved in her is of the Holy spirit.” 1:25 “…and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son.”
Originally posted by Ben Gash Chris, surely Jesus was uniquely man and God, at once wholly human and wholly God?
Yes. This is consistent with the statement “Jesus was human.” It doesn’t make alot of sense at first glance, but it’s considered heretical to say “Jesus wasn’t human because he was God, or the son of God.” Like you said, he’s wholly human. Also other stuff, but that’s not what was being discussed. There might be a good reason why we have this seemingly-paradoxical emphasis on him really being wholly human though…
the deification of Mary in the Catholic church stems from the period of the black death
I’m not sure what you mean by “deification” here.
Catholics always seem to have strange attitudes about sex.
More the Romans than the eastern churches. In other words, it’s more a Roman thing than a Catholic thing.
Ah… like I said, that’s not “deification.” It’s a conception of the Church as wholly including [worship in] heaven. A Catholic prays with Mary in the same way a Protestant prays with his congregation. Which is why the Holy Mary says “pray for us” (just like a congregation is asked to pray), and not “save us” or something like that.
As for statues, I understand the Protestant aversion towards “idols”; but I consider idolatry to mean the worship of a false image of something rather than the thing itself. The most deceptive form of idolatry occurs entirely within our minds. Regarding physical idols, we can either allow them and run the risk of treating them inappropriately; or not have them, and run the risk of people being fundamentally unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how idolatry really works (as described above). Personally, I find the obsession with eliminating physical “idols” to be far more dangerous than the alternative.
BTW, the eastern traditions have as much reverance towards Mary, as well as practices Protestants would criticize as idolatry; though they were not exposed to the culture of the plague and similar things you mentioned.
Originally posted by GeneChing I guess my Lohan post just went past everyone. Maybe it was the Marco Polo part. Polo has been included in the Lohan according to some references, but that’s really obscure. Jesus however is often included among the 500 lohan.
But the question that needs to be answerd is 'When was he included in Chinese/Shaolin History?
There is a quote in the Bhagavad Gita, that conforms to the Buddhist and Hindu traditions considering Jesus as one of the avatars of the lord of heaven through time.
It says:
For the protection of the good,
For the destruction of the wicked,
And for the establishment of dharma,
I assume a body in every age.
But the question that needs to be answerd is 'When was he included in Chinese/Shaolin History?
It is likely that he was introduced in the mid 1500’s by the Jesuit order. At least, most profoundly and not in an obscure way like through other wandering Christians who predated the Jesuits in the Far east. From that I guess we can surmise that Shaolin would have made the inclusion during the Ming dynasty.
Originally posted by Ben Gash I don’t mean to be narcy, but it does annoy me when people throw theory at you as fact. All you’ve really said is that some people have a theory with little material evidence, and then claimed that your position is unassailible and the burden of proof lies with me:confused:
The same could be said of everything you believe in. Where’s your incontrovertible evidence to back up your faith?
It’s all theory, so MK’s views and beliefs are just as valid as yours. And just as unsupported.
As a point of interest, it is well known that the jesuits entered China in the guise of… Buddhist Monks. no kidding.
So, as possible it is that Jesus learned of buddhism, it is equally possible that the other way round was the actuality.
With the silk road, I’m sure that many were aware of many religions at the time. The Jewish people weren’t totally insular and traveled far outside the region for as long as their own recorded and traditional histories.
It’s also worthy of note that Jesus wasn’t a christian, he was a Jew and a Rabbi to boot and therefore in his sermons and evangalizing he drew from the traditional stories of Judaeism. That would be the Old testament and its stories and particularly the relationship of Jews to the god of Moses.
Anyway, in the end, it’s all good, if god is going to come in an avatar, god will come in an avatar that is culturally relative and relevant to the people who are intended to see and hear it.
As a point of interest, it is well known that the jesuits entered China in the guise of… Buddhist Monks. no kidding. So, as possible it is that Jesus learned of buddhism, it is equally possible that the other way round was the actuality.
It’s funny you bring this up.
I read in a chinese philosophy/culture class I took as an undergrad that the original Jesuits were treated by the Buddhist monks as sort of mendicant buddhists, and their evaluation of the Chinese spiritual beliefs when they reported back to the vatican or whatever was that there was nothing inconsistent between the indigenous beliefs and the practice of Christianity. This finding led to the temporary abolition of the order, I believe.
Its also possible that some Persians were Buddhist. Further, most of the early prophets tombs are located and still venerated in Iran, not anywhere near Israel. The Holy Land is the entire region, not just Israel.
There might be a good reason why we have this seemingly-paradoxical emphasis on him really being wholly human though…