Tweet
A response to a claim that Jesus was an avatar.
The link can be found here.
----
Has the true identity of Jesus been revealed? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
It's not uncommon to hear that someone else thinks they know the true identity of Jesus. Naturally, it's an identity that has nothing to do with Second Temple Judaism and is instead in line with what they believe. So it is with Jeffrey Charles Archer, who was a Southern Baptist minister who embraced a more Hindu position and has said Jesus is an avatar. His work can be found here.
So let's go through and see how the case is.
So let's see. Kersey Graves right at the start, which tells us enough. Kersey Graves is someone no one should take seriously today, but of course in the great big world of the internet, the only resurrections that are believed in are of dead ideas that are brought back to life to a new people who have never heard them and don't understand why they weren't seriously acknowledged to begin with. (Strange you never see them sharing theories of phlogiston or aether being in the sky.)
But hey, maybe it's just because I'm a Christian that I'm saying this. Or maybe, maybe it's just that it's true. Let's suppose I went to the other side. Let's go to the Secular Web and see what they say.
Keep in mind that this is Richard Carrier saying this and if Richard Carrier says a fellow skeptic is a crank type, well that's a serious charge. Still, I actually agree with him this time. Graves is someone to not take seriously.
What about the phonetic similarity between Christ and Krishna. This sounds convincing to a lot of people, such as the ones who make a big deal about the "Son" of God in comparison to the "Sun." Which, you know, totally works if you assume that the New Testament was written in modern English. Other than that, it's a useless comparison.*
If Archer wants to say there is a case, we would need to compare the words for Christ and Krishna in their original languages and show that there was borrowing, such as Greeks borrowing ideas from the Indians. Archer needs more than just a hunch.*
And what about sheep in another pasture? Of course, this is going to be the one statement in the Gospel of John He did say. All those other strong claims He made about Himself absolutely do not even have any remotely historical backing. The comment as it is has an easy enough explanation. It refers to the Gentiles.
You gotta love how personal testimony never seems to go out of style for these guys. It's a card they just can't ever seem to stop playing. Still, there isn't anything along the lines of evidence to respond to here so we move on.
*
Of course, we could go to Judaism and find a parallel for the only begotten Son in Isaac's relation to Abraham. If you think this is anything like the Trinity in Christianity, you might as well think that Trinity in The Matrix is a good parallel of the Trinity. The relation in a Hindu pantheon is not at all like the case of divine identity in Judaism and Christianity, which would have no concept of hooking up in the Godhead.*
On the other hand, if your Father is seen as a male figure, maybe you might refer to Him as, I don't know, Father. As for the Holy Spirit, perhaps the term comes from, and yeah, this might be a stretch, the Old Testament? As for misogynistic ideas, this must explain why Jesus had female disciples, Phoebe and Prisca and others were leaders in the early church, etc.
You kind of have to wonder what's going on to make someone think this and think that this is a serious theory.*
It's a mystery why the reference to Jesus as the Word is mentioned. It bears no relation to nothing else here. As for AUM, to say it's almost certainly the origin of "Amen" requires a lot more than just a claim. Again, one needs to see the words in their original languages, then compare them, and then have actual evidence of borrowing. Finally, with regard to healing, for any deity, miracles of any sort would be part of the repertoire, so this is hardly a parallel.
*
Or they might be just the products of a very fervent imagination. This is the same kind of stuff that produced Graves's material. Again, there's a reason these theories are not taken seriously anymore. There are others who have made these claims in the past and made them better and they still fell drastically short.
If Archer ever cracked open any other ancient biographies, he would find a whole lot of other missing years. Did all of these go to India? The problem with the India hypothesis is that we have no hard evidence. In fact, in Luke when Jesus speaks at the synagogue, he is said to have grown up there. There is no indication that he went to India.
So I conclude this with shock of all shocks, being thoroughly unimpressed. It looks like Archer likely went from believing one thing blindly to believing something else blindly. Consider this another example of how we are failing to equip our pastorate. I look forward to a future with a more informed pastorate that knows how to explain what they believe, why, and be able to answer critics.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
The link can be found here.
----
Has the true identity of Jesus been revealed? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
It's not uncommon to hear that someone else thinks they know the true identity of Jesus. Naturally, it's an identity that has nothing to do with Second Temple Judaism and is instead in line with what they believe. So it is with Jeffrey Charles Archer, who was a Southern Baptist minister who embraced a more Hindu position and has said Jesus is an avatar. His work can be found here.
So let's go through and see how the case is.
So let's see. Kersey Graves right at the start, which tells us enough. Kersey Graves is someone no one should take seriously today, but of course in the great big world of the internet, the only resurrections that are believed in are of dead ideas that are brought back to life to a new people who have never heard them and don't understand why they weren't seriously acknowledged to begin with. (Strange you never see them sharing theories of phlogiston or aether being in the sky.)
But hey, maybe it's just because I'm a Christian that I'm saying this. Or maybe, maybe it's just that it's true. Let's suppose I went to the other side. Let's go to the Secular Web and see what they say.
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ*is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless. After all, a scholar who rarely cites a source isn't useful to have as a reference even if he is right. For examples of specific problems, however, see*Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage,and some generally poor but not always incorrect*Christian rebuttals.*A very helpful discussion of related methodological problems by renowned scholar Bruce Metzger is also well worth reading ("Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity" 2002). In general, even when the evidence is real, it often only appears many years after Christianity began, and thus might be evidence of diffusion in the other direction. Another typical problem is that Graves draws far too much from what often amounts to rather vague evidence.
What about the phonetic similarity between Christ and Krishna. This sounds convincing to a lot of people, such as the ones who make a big deal about the "Son" of God in comparison to the "Sun." Which, you know, totally works if you assume that the New Testament was written in modern English. Other than that, it's a useless comparison.*
If Archer wants to say there is a case, we would need to compare the words for Christ and Krishna in their original languages and show that there was borrowing, such as Greeks borrowing ideas from the Indians. Archer needs more than just a hunch.*
And what about sheep in another pasture? Of course, this is going to be the one statement in the Gospel of John He did say. All those other strong claims He made about Himself absolutely do not even have any remotely historical backing. The comment as it is has an easy enough explanation. It refers to the Gentiles.
You gotta love how personal testimony never seems to go out of style for these guys. It's a card they just can't ever seem to stop playing. Still, there isn't anything along the lines of evidence to respond to here so we move on.
*
Of course, we could go to Judaism and find a parallel for the only begotten Son in Isaac's relation to Abraham. If you think this is anything like the Trinity in Christianity, you might as well think that Trinity in The Matrix is a good parallel of the Trinity. The relation in a Hindu pantheon is not at all like the case of divine identity in Judaism and Christianity, which would have no concept of hooking up in the Godhead.*
On the other hand, if your Father is seen as a male figure, maybe you might refer to Him as, I don't know, Father. As for the Holy Spirit, perhaps the term comes from, and yeah, this might be a stretch, the Old Testament? As for misogynistic ideas, this must explain why Jesus had female disciples, Phoebe and Prisca and others were leaders in the early church, etc.
You kind of have to wonder what's going on to make someone think this and think that this is a serious theory.*
It's a mystery why the reference to Jesus as the Word is mentioned. It bears no relation to nothing else here. As for AUM, to say it's almost certainly the origin of "Amen" requires a lot more than just a claim. Again, one needs to see the words in their original languages, then compare them, and then have actual evidence of borrowing. Finally, with regard to healing, for any deity, miracles of any sort would be part of the repertoire, so this is hardly a parallel.
"Upon completing his princely training and studies when he offered 'gurudakshina' or fee to his guru, the master aware of his divine power asked him for a blessing of sight and speech for his blind and dumb son. Manikantan placed his hand on the boy and the miracle happened." *(http://srinagaroo.blogspot.com/2013/...yappa.html?m=1
Or they might be just the products of a very fervent imagination. This is the same kind of stuff that produced Graves's material. Again, there's a reason these theories are not taken seriously anymore. There are others who have made these claims in the past and made them better and they still fell drastically short.
If Archer ever cracked open any other ancient biographies, he would find a whole lot of other missing years. Did all of these go to India? The problem with the India hypothesis is that we have no hard evidence. In fact, in Luke when Jesus speaks at the synagogue, he is said to have grown up there. There is no indication that he went to India.
So I conclude this with shock of all shocks, being thoroughly unimpressed. It looks like Archer likely went from believing one thing blindly to believing something else blindly. Consider this another example of how we are failing to equip our pastorate. I look forward to a future with a more informed pastorate that knows how to explain what they believe, why, and be able to answer critics.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
Comment