181 The Christ 2, Jesus Copies Buddha

The degree to which the lives of Jesus and Krishna are identical as revealed in The Christ by John Remsberg clearly demonstrates that the comparison is even more applicable when the life of Jesus is correlated with that of Buddha. On page 370 he states, "The word Buddha, like the word Christ, is not a name, but a title. It means 'the enlightened one'. The name for this religious founder was Siddhartha Gautama. He was born about 643 B.C, and died 563 B.C. (Note well that that is long before the birth of Jesus). His mother, Mahamaya, was a virgin. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity, says, 'Buddha, according to a tradition known in the West, was born of a virgin' (Vol. I, p. 99). Devaki (the mother of Krishna), Mary, and Mahamaya, all gave birth to their children among strangers.... The 'Tripitaka', the principal Bible of the Buddhists, containing the history of the teachings of Buddha, is a collection of books written in the centuries immediately following Buddha. The canon was finally determined at the Council of Pataliputra, held under the auspices of the Emperor Asoka the Great, 244 B.C., more than 600 years before the Christian canon was established....

Buddha was 'about 30 years old' when he began his ministry (as was Jesus allegedly). He fasted 'seven times seven nights and days'. He had a 'band of disciples' who accompanied him. He traveled from place to place and 'preached to large multitudes'. Bishop Bigandet calls his first sermon the 'Sermon on the Mount'. At his Renunciation 'he forsook father and mother, wife and child'. His mission was 'to establish the kingdom of righteousness'. 'Buddha', says Max Mueller, 'promised salvation to all; and he commanded his disciples to preach his doctrine in all places and to all men'....

Buddha formulated the following commandments. 'Not to kill; not to steal; not to lie; not to commit adultery; not to use strong drink'. Christ said, 'Thou knowest the commandments: do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor thy father and thy mother' (Luke 18:20). Christ ignored the Decalogue of Moses and, like Buddha, presented a pentade which, with the exception of one commandment, is the same as that of Buddha.

Prof. Seydel, of the University of Leipzig, points out 50 analogies between Christianity and Buddhism. Dr. Schleiden calls attention to over 100. Baron Hiarden-Hickey says: 'Countless analogies exist between Buddhistic and Christian legends--analogies so striking that they forcibly prove to an impartial mind that a common origin must necessarily be given to the teachings of Sakay-Muni (Buddha) and those of Jesus. Concerning the biographical accounts of the two religious teachers Harden-Hickey says, 'One account must necessarily be a copy of the other, and since the Buddhist biographer, living long before the birth of Christ, could not have borrowed from the Christian one, the plain inference is that the early creed-mongers of Alexandria were guilty of plagiarism'."

The following are some of the parallels presented by this writer.

At this point Remsberg lists comparisons between the lives of Jesus and Buddha that should be brought to the attention of every Christian who ever lived. "Both have genealogies tracing their descent from ancestral kings. Both were born of virgin mothers. The conception of each was announced by a divine messenger. The hymns uttered at the two annunciations resemble each other. Both were visited by wise men who brought them gifts. Both were presented in the temple. The aged Simeon of one account corresponds to the aged Asita of the other. As 'the child (Jesus) grew and waxed strong in spirit' so 'the child (Sakay-Muni) waxed and increased in strength.' Both in childhood discoursed before teachers. Both fasted in the wilderness. Both were tempted. Angels or devatas ministered to each. Buddha bathed in the Narajana, and Christ was baptized in the Jordan. The mission of each was proclaimed by a voice from Heaven. Both performed miracles. Both sent out disciples to propagate their faiths. In calling their disciples the command of each was, 'Follow me.' Buddha preached on the Holy Hill, and Christ delivered his sermon on the Mount. The phraseology of the sermons of Buddha and the sermon ascribed to Christ is, in many instances, the same. Both Buddha and Christ compare themselves to husbandmen sowing seed. The story of the prodigal son is found in both Scriptures. The account of the man born blind is common to both. In both the mustard seed is used as a simile for littleness. Christ speaks of 'a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand;' Buddha says, 'Perishable is the city built of sand.' Both speak of 'the rain which falls on the just and the unjust.' The story of the ruler, Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night has its parallel in the story of the rich man who came to Buddha by night. A converted courtesan, Magdalena, followed Jesus, and a converted courtesan, Ambapali, followed Buddha. There is a legend of a traitor connected with each. Both made triumphal entries, Christ into Jerusalem, and Buddha into Rajagriba. Both proclaimed kingdoms not of this world. The eternal life promised by Christ corresponds to the eternal peace, Nirvana, promised by Buddha. And both religions recognize a trinity." This list could be extended but the point has been made.

...Remsberg quotes Bishop Bigandet further as saying, "In reading the particulars of the life of Buddha it is impossible not to feel reminded of many circumstances relating to our Savior's life as sketched by the evangelists. It may be said in favor of Buddhism that no philosophic-religious system has ever upheld to an equal degree the notions of a savior and deliverer, and the necessity of his mission for procuring the salvation of man....

The external forms of Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity, are modeled in a large degree after those of Buddhism. Of Northern Buddhism (Lamaism) the Encyclopedia Britannica says: 'Lamaisnu with its shaven priests, its bells and rosaries, its images and holy water, its popes and bishops, its abbots and monks of many grades, its processions and feast days, its confessional and purgatory, and its worship of the double Virgin, so strongly resembles Roman Catholicism that the first Catholic missionaries thought it must be an imitation by the devil of the religion of Christ.' The central object in every Buddhist temple is an image of Buddha. The central object of every Catholic church is an image of Christ. Holy relics and the veneration of saints are prominent in both. Buddha commanded his disciples to preach his gospel to all men. Christ commanded his disciples to do the same.

...Connected with the triumphs of these religious faiths there is an historical analogy deserving of mention. Three centuries after the time of Buddha, Asoka the Great, emperor of India, became a convert to the Buddhist faith, made it the state religion of the empire, and did more than any other man to secure its supremacy in the East. Three centuries after Christ, Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome, became a convert to the Christian faith, made it the state religion of his empire, and won for it the supremacy of the West."

In concluding his presentation of the similarities between Buddha and Jesus, Remsberg quotes Remuset who says, "Buddhism has been called the Christianity of the East" and then adds the following compelling correction. "It would be more appropriate to call Christianity the Buddhism of the West. Buddha, and not Christ, was the 'Light of Asia.' At this torch Christians lighted their taper and called it 'The Light of the World'."

In light of the fact that Buddha predated Jesus by approximately 600 years, the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from the parallels between their lives is readily apparent. For obvious reasons, this kind of information is all but non-existent in Christian sermons, schools, literature, media, and other propaganda agencies. After all, Jesus couldn't very well be the unique messiah for all mankind when he is exposed as nothing more than another pretender in a long series of alleged saviors.




One of the more prominent apologetic works is a popular defense of the Bible entitled Does the Bible Contradict Itself? by W. Arndt, professor of New Testament exegesis and hermeneutics at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. To some extent Arndt operates in the tradition of Haley who wrote what is probably the most famous 19th century defense of scripture--Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Arndt's answers are often brief while deceptive and superficially persuasive. Only when one disassembles and dissects the relevant data and the accompanying ramifications, assumptions, conjectures, and irrelevancies does reality step from fog to foreground. An extensive, but by no means exhaustive, critique of his techniques and defenses is in order because they represent the kind of strategy employed by many apologists. Some of his more egregious violations of intellectual integrity are the following:

On page 12 Arndt addresses the contradiction between Gen. 25:6 ("But unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had,....") and Heb. 11:17 ("By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son ") by saying, "Abraham has only one son, and he had several sons--both statements are true. ...Isaac was the only son whom Sarah had born to him, the only one who was to be in the direct line of ancestry to the Messiah. Isaac was the only heir of the vast possessions of Abraham. Hence, while it is true that Abraham had sons by concubines, the statement that Isaac was his only son is justified and not in conflict with the passages that speak of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah."

In order to escape this dilemma Arndt arbitrarily injected an unsustainable textual addendum. Nothing is said about Isaac being the only son in "the direct line of ancestry to the Messiah." The text says Isaac is the only begotten son of Abraham, period; it does not say he was the only son in "the direct line of ancestry to the Messiah." That is a gratuitous insertion that is not warranted by Scripture.

The word "begotten" will not save the day because nowhere does Scripture give that term any other meaning than that which can be found in Webster's dictionary, namely, "beget" means: "to be the father or sire of; to procreate; to bring into being or produce." These meanings can be applied to many individuals and do not distinguish Isaac from other OT figures in any meaningful way. Nowhere does Scripture restrict that term to the Messiah generally or Jesus specifically. According to Gen. 5:4 Seth was "begotten" and according to Judges 8:30 seventy sons of Gideon were "begotten". So no special significance can be attached to the word "begotten." If "begotten" means one is in the direct line of ancestry to the Messiah then all 70 of Gideon's sons were in that lineage as well--quite a trick, indeed!

Moving further, on page 17 Arndt confronts the contradiction between Ex. 9:3, 6 ("Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy (Egypt's) cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep; there shall be a very grievous murrain. And all the cattle of Egypt died " ) and Ex. 14:9 ("But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea....") by stating, "How could Pharaoh pursue the Israelites with a large army, including horsemen and chariots, if in the plague of which we read in Ex. 9:3, 6 all his horses had died? In answer I beg to submit the following three points: (1) The word "all" in such cases is a relative concept. When a heavy frost in spring shatters the hopes for an abundant fruit crop in a certain locality, I may say the whole crop has been destroyed, despite the fact that a few isolated apples and peaches will appear on the trees. My remark simply states that, generally speaking, there will be no fruit crop, or, in other words, that the fruit which has survived is not worth mentioning. Thus it may have been when a dread murrain overtook the cattle and horses in Egypt. The loss was so general that the animals which remained were very few in number and hardly worth mentioning....."

This explanation is only another way of saying that "all" does not mean all. It means "most" or "nearly all." Are we, or are we not, dealing with Gods perfect, inerrant word? According to millions of Christians, we are. If so, then we are not dealing with the linguistic license accorded imperfect human beings in which we know absolutes do not refer to "totality". We are dealing with perfection and perfection allows no imperfections or near misses. This is not a theological game of horseshoes. Long ago I noted that the Bibles propensity for absolutist comments is a weakness of the first magnitude and this is a quintessential example of same. There can be no in between when you are dealing with perfection and god is perfection by definition. If he wrote it, whatever it may be, then it has to be perfect.

Secondly, if "the animals which remained were very few in number and hardly worth mentioning" then how were the Egyptians able to pursue the Israelites with a force strong enough to pursue hundreds of thousands?

Arndt then proceeds to his next explanation. "(2) Moses indicates in his narrative that the plague affected not all the cattle of the Egyptians, but only those which were in the field (Ex. 9:3). The account then permits us to assume that the horses of Pharaoh which he kept in his forts ready for immediate service escaped the murrain."

It is interesting to note that Arndt qualified his comment with the word "indicates" because he knows as well as I that that is not what the text says occurred. Although the 3rd verse does say, "the hand of the Lord is upon the cattle which is in the field" verse 6 goes much farther by saying "And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died," not just those which were in the field.

Arndt concludes by saying, "(3) The animals belonging to the Israelites were not stricken, as we see from Ex. 9:4, 7. It may be that Pharaoh, immediately after the cessation of the plague, filled the gaps in his supply of war horses by taking as many horses from the Israelites as he could, under some pretext or other." This is nothing more than rampant speculation for which there is not a shred of textual support either. "May be" are hardly the words of sound, proven scholarship. If he is going to stretch e-vents to that degree, why not just say God resupplied the Pharaoh as needed like manna from heaven or hundreds of horses were shipped in from foreign lands. Better yet, why not say new horses sprang from the cells, DNA, and protoplasm of those horses that were killed or God made horses "out of the dust of the ground" like he did Adam? And if you really want to go all out, why not contend aliens from space landed with an ample supply of horses they were willing to loan. The fact that none of this nonsense has any textual backing whatever should be of no consequence. After all, if you are going to let your imagination run wild like a babe in toy land, why impose limits?

One can't help but notice that Arndt failed to employ an excuse that would probably have been seized upon by the more inept biblical defenders. Ex. 9:6 says all the cattle of Egypt died; it did not say all the horses. No doubt some eager defenders would seize upon the distinction made between cattle and horses and allege the former were intended while the latter were not. But that would only prove he is unaware of the fact that the word cattle could be more accurately translated from the Hebrew as livestock, which would include horses. The word "cattle" in Ex. 9:6 comes from the Hebrew word "miqneh" which means "livestock" or "live herds" or "flocks" that are property. Unlike the King James, a sizable number of modern translations are willing to admit as much. The Modern Language, the NIV (fundamentalist), the JB (Catholic), the NAB (Catholic), the NWT, and the NASB all use the word "livestock" rather than the word "cattle" which would include horses as well as cattle, rather than cattle alone. The Good News Bible uses the word animals which is even more encompassing than livestock because that would include pets too. So, the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this entire scenario is that all the Pharaohs horses were killed. How, then, could the Pharaohs army have pursued the Israelites on horses and horse-drawn chariots?

On page 20 Arndt attempts to reconcile a contradiction we mentioned long ago with respect to the acts of God. Ex. 20:14 says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" which contradicts Num. 31:18 in which God says, "All the women children that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves." Arndt says, "This pair of passages presents so little difficulty from the point of view of harmonization that it would not have been listed if it were not for the frivolous and unscrupulous use which some unbelieving writers are making of Num. 31:18 in our days. They maintain the order contained in this passage was given so that the immoral desires of the Israelites might be served. If that were true then God would indeed be contradicting Himself.... But is the import of Num. 31:18 correctly given by these scoffers? The passage or the context does not contain one syllable which might justify their interpretation. In raising their charge, they are drawing entirely on their wicked imagination, imputing to God and the leaders of Israel the motives which might have actuated themselves in such a situation."

Apparently working on the theory that the best defense is to seize the offense, Arndt attributes motives to biblical opponents that are designed to gain the upper hand psychologically, even though they are neither provable nor relevant. An alleged "wicked imagination" on the part of biblical critics is not the dilemmas source; logic is. Psychological motives are not what matters; deeds are. The fact is that God ordered men to take women and keep them alive "for yourselves." Arndt contends the text does not justify imputing impure motives to God and the leaders of Israel when there is nothing in the text to prove otherwise. He just assumes out of hand that since god is the perpetrator, the motives must be pure. Judging from an incredibly large number of other Scriptural acts by god, that assumption can hardly be deemed justified. What God ordered is more important than why he ordered it, absent evidence to the contrary. And most assuredly evidence to the contrary is not forthcoming.

Arndt says critics "maintain the order contained in this passage was given so that the immoral desires of the Israelites might be served," when critics are saying nothing of the sort. Who said anything about motives. Critics are not saying anything with respect to why the order was given, since that's not the issue. The fact is that God told men to take women and use them "for themselves." If only one person involved is married, then God is ordering adultery. Why the order was given is of secondary importance.

Arndt says, "The passage or the context does not contain one syllable which might justify their interpretation" when Arndt provides nothing that would justify any other. Essentially, when all the smoke and mirrors are removed, Arndt's argument amounts to nothing more than saying "God wouldn't do something like that. He is too nice a guy. And how do I know he is so pure, because the Bible tells me so." In that case, I'd strongly suggest Arndt reread Scripture, and do so much more closely than was formerly the case, after reading issues 115 through 120 of BE.

Continuing on page 21 Arndt says, "The command of God has it full explanation in the fact that the women mentioned in Num. 31:18 had not been active in seducing the Israelites to participation in the immoral worship of Peor, hence they were permitted to live, although they had to become the slaves of the Israelites....." Arndt tries to attribute decent motives to god by alleging he saved the women from death and consigned them to slavery instead, which is irrelevant. He is trying to shift the focus from adultery to slavery. Whether or not God saved them from death and made them slaves instead is insignificant, especially in light of the fact that the Bible doesn't clarify their slave status one way or the other. The point that counts is that adultery was condoned, indeed commanded, in the process. The fact that they were enslaved rather than killed doesn't exonerate God. It isn't even germane. The fact that god ordered the Israelites to use them in the act of adultery certainly is.

On page 33 Arndt tackles the conflict between 2 Sam. 6:23 ("Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death") and 2 Sam. 21:8 ("But the king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul...and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel, the son of Barzillai...."). He states, "There are two different ways of bringing these two passages into agreement. The holy writer in his statement in 2 Sam. 6:23 may intend to say that Michal had no child in her marriage with David. If we assume this to be his meaning, then all difficulty vanishes." In our discussion of the work entitled Who Moved the Stone by Morison we dwelled at length on the speculative approach to biblical defense and Arndt has again raised its ugly head. "May intend," and "if we assume" are not the words of proven scholarship but more in the tradition of "I only hope so." Arndt is guessing in every respect and just as importantly he is guessing without biblical support. Nothing is said about David or Michal's marriage to David.

Arndt continues by saying, "The other explanation advocated is that we assume Michal in 2 Sam. 21:8 to be a copyists mistake for Merob. If we compare the latter passage with 1 Sam. 18:19 ("And it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife"), we shall see that Merob was the daughter of Saul who was given in marriage to Adriel, the man mentioned in 2 Sam. 21:8. Thus, it seems clear that this passage does not speak of Michal, the wife of David. Some Bible editions propose this explanation in the margin, that by Michal, Michal's sister is meant."

There is that word "assume" again. Credible biblical analysis is not in the assumption business. It is in the facts, data, proof, evidence, statistics, and direct quote business. And these are considerations with which Arndt and his compatriots all too often have little or no patience. They not only play havoc with a lot of meticulously manufactured methodologies and thousands of tangled theorems but demolish those soothing feelings accompanying the delusional assurance heaven awaits the true believer. Arndt says, "Thus, it seems clear that this passage does not speak of Michal, the wife of David" when there is nothing clear about it. Second Samuel 21:8 uses the word "Michal" not "Merob." That is what is clear. Arndt arbitrarily assumes there has been a copyist error and then, just as arbitrarily, assumes the woman intended was Merob.

Arndt closes the issue by saying, "Another view put forward by some writers is that Merob was called Michal at times, having two names....." Again more speculation and guesswork for the pile, because there is nothing of a scriptural nature that would corroborate this unbridled addendum either. I am always inclined to ask writers who insert nearly as much between the lines as is on them: why don't you just throw away every current version of the Bible and write your own? That way you would no longer be forced to ram square theories through round facts. Then, again, you would have to deviate markedly from the manuscripts wouldn't you. But what are mere trifles like honesty, integrity, and credibility when salvaging Scripture in general and Jesus in particular are at stake. (To Be Continued Next Month)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #759 from BM of Seattle, Washington

Dear Sir. I am an atheist here in Seattle and was very pleased to see your program on channel 29. I was surprised when you didn't identify yourself as an Atheist or use the word atheist during the program. Those of us who are non-believers need a common word to unify us. In spite of its negative connotation I would hope in the interest of unity you would proudly proclaim your atheism.

Editor's Response to Letter #759

Dear BM. BE is not nearly as concerned with the existence or nonexistence of some kind of supreme being as with Scripture and its alleged perfection. The accuracy of the latter is of greater concern to us than the presence of the former.

Secondly, the word atheist has been saddled with so much negative baggage by religious propagandists throughout the years that it would all but close the minds of thousands if it were to be employed in the title or serve as a backdrop to our programs on a regular basis. It would be like calling yourself a socialist before speaking to a crowd of Reaganites. The word would burn bridges, build barriers and propagate prejudgments.

Thirdly, you must first dissuade people from their erroneous beliefs before suggesting an alternative. How often can you build a structure before bringing in the bulldozer or wrecking ball to prepare the ground. You are trying to eat an omelet without cracking some eggs.

Letter #760 from BG of Jacksonville, Florida

Dear Dennis McKinsey. I just read a book titled "The Bible Code", by Michael Drosnin. A Mormon friend loaned it to me. (He's trying to convert me). We made a deal. I gave him several back issues of Biblical Errancy to read in return.

I don't know if you have ever read "The Bible Code. It was written in 1997 and it's full of claims about the truth of prophesy. I'll quote 2 paragraphs from the book;

"The final countdown now began. The Bible Code had yet again been proven real, accurately predicting an Israeli election that every poll called wrong, just as it had accurately predicted the year Rabin would be killed. But as September 13, 1996, the day of the predicted holocaust drew near, the new Prime Minister refused to heed the warning.

It was 3 years from the day of the Rabin-Arafat handshake. Rabin was now dead, as the Bible Code predicted. The peace was now dead, as the Bible Code predicted. Peres the architect of the peace, had been replaced by Netanyahu, the opponent of the peace, as the Bible Code predicted."

The book is 232 pages long, with graphs and different models to prove his theory. It's getting a lot of attention from different Christian groups. I really wish you would get a copy and review it.....

Editor's Response to Letter #760

Dear BG. I have read too many books of this kind already and every one has been all but worthless as a guide to life. Scam artists are everywhere and in few areas are they more multitudinous than in that of prediction and prognostication. Their scheme is one of remaining fluid at all times by avoiding comments that allow no interpretation or escape hatches as if they had the plague. Back-dating and nebulosity lie at the very core of their stock and trade.

Back-dating consists of reading into prior comments interpretations tailored for today's events. The adherents of Nostradamus, for example, are well known devotees of this approach. Biblicists don't have a lock on this strategy by any means. You simply go back into a writing created years ago and twist comments contained therein in such a manner that they can be applied to current events. Nebulosity, on the other hand, consists in making comments today that are so vague, nebulous, and imprecise that they can be distorted as the need arises to fit future events. Either way it's a con game.

Fortunately, both ways can be tested, something the adherents of each subconsciously detest. Ask those relying upon back-dating to peruse their prized writing and show where the specific events to which they refer are stated after having proven the writing was definitely written prior to the events. In addition, ask them to find another prediction of something that will happen in the near future, something specific, something that is clearly quantifiable, measurable, and observable, something that would not be obvious to any ordinary human being, such as predicting the sun will rise over the horizon on June 1, 1999. Then just watch them worm and squirm as they seek to weasel out of these requests through any one of several subterfuges.

Ask the "nebulosity" crowd to predict specific events that will happen in the near future. If the death of Rabin was predicted, then ask them to state, or better yet, write down the day upon which any one of thousands of other famous public figures and celebrities will die. Ask them where the value of various stocks and bonds will be on certain dates or what the winning lottery numbers will be for different state lotteries. This list could be extended almost to infinity. Common sense would tell you that if these people had any kind of lock on accurate predictions, they would be wealthy beyond belief and they would not have to make money though conning others in the process. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to accept the words of charlatans that such and such a book or such and such a person made this or that accurate prediction without checking the source, performing experiments, insisting on being an eye-witness, or demanding a repetition. It is truly incredible.

Practitioners of perversion not only read into events that which they wish to project, but their listeners are often so starved for signs from the Almighty or so desperate for signs, wonders, and messages that they will actually aid the hoax and contribute to their own illusions, delusions, and hallucinations. It's analogous to the fortune teller or psychic who relates events in someone's life in a general way and then the hearer fills in the details, only to conclude the pretender has great wisdom or predictive capabilities. In truth, these frauds provide no information that does not come from the victim either directly or indirectly via soliciting and inveigling. They would be sickeningly rich, rather than just sickening, if they really had powers of projection and prophecy.