Talk:Buddhism and Christianity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Direct Influence

When there is a stone pillar which writes the names of the kings of those regions in museums and written by a HISTORICAL EMPEROR (Ashoka) who sent Buddhist missionaries to those areas, saying he has won conquest of the Dharma -- you have a direct influence of Buddhist ideas available in the Middle East...What's the dispute?

Are they so shameless to deny obvious historical/archeological evidence?

You'd wish archeology is that simple. 151.201.9.156 00:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

User:A.J.A. seems to insist on leaving the "Disputed" tag at the beginning of the article, inspite of the numerous improvements and additions (especially references) that have been made over the last month (and no comment from his part during that time). A.J.A., you will have to give your exact rationale if you want to leave that tag. Regards. PHG 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus is the Trinity: Father, son (the word) and holy Ghost" -- the article says that. Apparently anyone who thinks this sort of thing is unacceptible isn't welcome here, but please at least keep some vestige of standards around. A.J.A. 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Anything else? PHG 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus is the trinity" is objectionable? Excuse me, but it's right in the Bible.

1 John 5:7–8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Perhaps only AJA's ignorance of the Bible is the only thing unacceptable here.--149.4.108.141 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No... the text that you introduced did not capture the idea well (Christianity has a Trinity as arguably does Buddhism). In fact, it did not even represent the Christian concept of the Trinity accurately. Jesus is not the Trinity but rather one Person in a Triune God.

Please avoid personal attacks. Although I'm not always happy with the way in which AJA makes his points, there has been validity to his issues with this article in the past and this article has been improved greatly in response to his criticisms.

AJA, it really is not appropriate to just slap a tag onto an article without explaining on the Talk Page what you consider the issues to be. PHG is right to ask for an explanation of the tag. You can't just say "I don't like the article so I'm going to slap the tag on to show that I don't like it." I'm going to remove the tag. Feel free to replace it along with an explanation here of why you think the tag belongs there.

--Richard 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Anyone reading AJA's post would see that it's AJA using personal attacks. Pointing out incorrect information isn't a personal attack.

Actually I see the problem...

I am merely talking about the trinity as presented in the New Testament scriptures and NOT ABOUT CHURCH TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY which is a church view (which is what richard and AJA are talking about) - and this is a huge distinction. Similarly I am not talking about Buddhist schools, but rather direct quotes from the Pali Canon.

So when I say, Jesus is the Trinity, I am talking about Jesus's singular name to represent the trinity and the New Testament contradictory verses, and not about the Trinitarian theology official position of three equal but separate beings in one Godhead.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). John 14: [8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? --149.4.108.141 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

149.4.108.141 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your heresy is beside the point. BTW, the text you cited is an interpolation. A.J.A. 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize AJA, I reposted my response since I realized you and Richard were talking about the Catholic doctrine about the trinity and trinitarianism...and I was merely posting references to the unity of the "trinity" in the name of "Jesus Christ" in the New Testament and did not at all mean to represent official church doctrine...

Fair use rationale for Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg

Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Theories

There's a lot in this article that looks like fringe material, such as the statements about evidence for Jesus going to India. Does any reputable scholar take this seriously? The material about theories of Buddhist influence on the origins of Christianity may well be similar. Certainly a lot of the sources quoted are from a very long time ago, & are unlikely to represent up-to-date scholarship. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Budddhism (2004) (Volume One), page 159, says:

"... speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation."

Peter jackson (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Mr Wales himself says, quoted in WP:NPOV:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

So can anyone find a prominent scholar who maintains any of these theories? Obviously, "prominent" must not be interpreted so as to include "notorious crackpot". Peter jackson (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a prominent scholar who maintains that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks? The issue is not whether the theories are espoused by a prominent scholar but rather whether the theories are notable enough to be encyclopedic. We are not asserting that the theories are true or even held by a significant minority of the academic community. We are simply stating that the theories have had sufficient dissemination to be worth documenting in an encyclopedia.

--Richard (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That won't wash. The article isn't called Fringe theories about the relationships between Buddhism and Christianity. It's supposed to be a balanced account of the subject. Instead it's a totally uncritical account of fringe theories only, & the statement I included from a r4eputable source stating that all such theories are unfounded has been deleted. this is unacceptable. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote not because of it's content because you should avoid quoting sources directly. Could you please reword the information if you wish to include it the introduction. I would like to remind you to please assume good faith.Coffeeassured (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that. Such technicalities are no excuse for deleting reputable POVs. My understanding of the WP:NPA is that one must choose one's words carefully so as to criticize actions & words, not people. Seems rather a pointless distinction to me, but that's what I try to do. I've now reported this article on the fringe theories noticeboard. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that you are restoring censored content is not assuming good faith when you have no evidence that was the reason it was removedCoffeeassured (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

It is apparent that this article has been impacted by User:PHG. I am very familiar with his pattern of editing, the insertion of original research, cherry picking sources and quotations, use of obscure sources, book cover images, and maps based on original research. I have made a first attempt at cleaning up this article, but there is much more to do. I suggest establishing an outline of what the article should cover, with headings, and then we should rewrite it top to bottom, removing anything dubious and adding references to high quality academic works that are recognized as the best sources. Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you have removed those tables, thank you I was about to do that when you put up the AfD.Coffeeassured (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with giving the top references, but the fact is there is the "fringe" groups and it is quite popular, a separate section for them perhaps instead of deleting them. An encyclopedia should be thorough and include different views. Madame Blavatsky was one influential "fringe" woman -- no matter what your personal opinion.

However, I disagree with editorializing the table. When scholars say that there are "so many similarities"...than I want to know what the similarities are. These similarities are sourced through primary sources found by many people who studied the 2 texts.

I LOVE THE TABLES!

I don't mind a clean up...but let's be a little better with "deleting" stuff -- I think REARRANGING and REORGANIZING can be a better step instead of massive deletions -- especially if they are sourced --216.27.141.135 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

These "tables" have nothing to do with me. Look at the state of the article, even before I contributed anything [1]. I probably contributed something like 15% of this article, essentially historical background and photographs. Cheers PHG (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And this would include your uploading and inserting the image [[2]] into the article. A book which the academic community turned up their noses, after its same author's dreadfully received The Jesus Conspiracy.--Firefly322 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The material in the two-paragraph section The Trinity is imho very tenuous, so much so that I'm removing it as part of overall copyedit & clean-up. The source for the first par appears to be the, by most accounts, dubious Jesus Conspiracy & the second par's assertions are unsourced. Wingspeed (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

In this version of the article, Elaine Pagels is given as an example of a scholar who "believe[s] that Jesus may have been inspired by Buddhism, and that the Gospel of Thomas and the Nag Hammadi texts reflect this influence." Her books The Gnostic Gosepls and Beyond Belief are mentioned as places where this belief may be found. I don't have Beyond Belief, but I have The Gnostic Gospels, where Buddhism is only mentioned on two pages in the book. One of those isn't relevant to our subject here, so in fact Pagels devotes very little space to the possible influence of Buddhism upon (Gnostic) Christianity, and she says, "These hints include the possibility, yet our evidence is not conclusive. Since parallel traditions may emerge in different cultures at different times, such ideas could have developed in both places independently...we look forward to the work of scholars who can study these traditions comparatively to discover whether they can, in fact, be traced to Indian sources." (The Gnostic Gospels, p. xxi) This is not an example of Pagels believing that Gnosticism may have been influenced by Buddhism, it's an example of her raising the possibility, in passing, in a book that is mostly about other issues. So I don't think that she should be mentioned as a scholar who supports this view, unless she devotes more substantial attention to this in Beyond Belief.

Pagels mentions one scholar who argues for a Buddhist influence on Gnosticism--Edward Conze, "Buddhism and Gnosis," in Le Origini dello Gnosticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966 (Leiden, 1967). Conze is mentioned in this article, but in a way that makes it clear that the editor who put him in had only read Pagels. This is not a great way to cite things or to add article content... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose break up of article

This article is unstable in great part due to its large, partially controversial mass. I want to propose the break up of the article into a series that would tie together with template box. A rough start would be:

1. An article on the academic Burkhard Scherer. Most importantly, what might his peers say about his scholarship?
2. An article on the academic Thomas Tweed. Most importantly, what might his peers say about his scholarship?
3. An article on the extraordinarily non-controversial area of parallels between Christianity and Buddhism (To this hobbyist, parallels as cultural comparisons without causal relations have never been a serious source of controversy in a hundred years.)
4. An article on 1st Millenium cross-cultural influences between Christianity and Buddhism.
5. An article on the extraordinarily controversial area of Buddhism's possible influence on Christianity and pre-Christian Mediterranean cultures possible awareness of Buddhism (To this hobbyist, such a causal relation and such an awareness has only ever been speculated about or mentioned in passing. Will Durant's mention of buddhist missionaries and the ethics of Christ is mentioned in one sentence on page 449 of a 1049 page book and it is clearly qualified with the word perhaps. Looking at her wikipedia aritlce, I learn Elaine Pagels scholarship has always been controversial.)
6. An article on turn of the century buddhist influence on Christian WP:FRINGE like that of Arthur Lillie.
7. Other appropriate articles as outlined by current article. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These could be created as daughter articles, with a brief summary of each included in Buddhism and Christianity. See WP:Summary style. Part of the problem with the current article is that it is so expansive a topic. The things covered are just a tiny bit of what's there, inevitably leading to undue weight. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pagels' scholarship is solid and well-respected, but she doesn't argue that Buddhism influenced Gnosticism--she mentions it in passing as an intriguing possibility that earlier scholars have brought up, and says that future research will clarify the question. I wrote about this above. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not to discount what you wrote at all (it's excellent), it's just that I've read Elaine Pagels#Reception--her views on Christianity seem controversial. If she's not an authority here, then her work need only be less abused (no more undue weight), similar to what appears to be abuse use of the Will Durant work. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled & shocked at the proposed break-up of this article, which I've only just recently come across. It's a perfectly respectable subject, both in an academic sense & in terms of contemporary global culture: in other words, more & more people who are products, obvious or less so, of each cultural tradition are encountering & inevitably influencing each other as we write. I must have in my library at least a dozen books on the consequences of the encounter between the Christian & Buddhist traditions. The historian Arnold Toynbee notoriously once said (I think in the 50s) that in future centuries that encounter might be seen as having constituted the most momentous phenomenon of the 20th Century. This article & its discussion are themselves - even in their current form - symptoms, however small & sad, of that phenomenon. Despite having read all the musings above, I'm still none the wiser as to motivation. Were it not the case that most of us are presumably doing our best the best we know how, I'd be led to suppose this tattered terrain of anxious talk to be the work of some adept troll who'd succeeded in stirring up a hornet's nest of religious sectarians. Please tell me I'd be wrong. If it's any suggestion that the Buddhist tradition somehow in the foggy past influenced Christendom that gets some people so prickly, what interests me far more is the demonstrable but hardly surprising influence in recent times of Christian culture on the Buddhist tradition: the very idea of "Buddhism," some have argued (Wilfred Cantwell Smith & others), is largely an occidental/Christian construct which has now fed itself back into Asia; after 2,500 years of palm leaves, the Pali canon in Thailand was actualy printed for the first time on Christian printing presses. There are numerous other examples, sometimes freighted with similar unintended irony. This is a hurried response by dint of its urgency. In the meantime, apart from Cantwell Smith, I commend to any not acquainted with them the respective works of the Catholic monks Thomas Merton, David Steindl-Rast, Wayne Teasdale and, most readably, the former Catholic nun Karen Armstrong, all of whom are most exercised by the encounter between so-called Buddhism & Christianity. Regards,Wingspeed (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Perhaps you could slow down and address things point by point, with evidence from reliable sources, rather than making appeals to authority and sweeping generalizations. The quality of this article is very poor. We need to identify the top scholarly works on the subject and summarize what they say. We need to identify the main sections for this article. I'm neither Christian nor Buddhist, so I no personal beliefs about whether one begat the other. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever scholarship honestly says is all I care about in regards to this article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the article needs to be broken up, but its scope needs to be clearly defined. Right now, the lead looks like the introduction to a compare-and-contrast essay, which is not a great format for a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the scope problem along with issues of maintenance can be solved by dividing the article into a series, along the lines of the Intelligent design article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, I agree with defining the scope (i.e., identifiying the main sections), identifying top scholarly works, and summarizing them. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Jehochman: Please forgive me. I suspect I've misunderstood what you propose & read "break up" - given all the talk here above & at the top of the article of deletion - as just that: a proposal of deletion. Hence my haste. I was not seeking to defend the article, merely to make a plea for clemency in the face of what I took to be possible sudden death. I hope I'd be the last, self-respecting armchair anarchist that I am, to make appeals to authority. I thought you may be questioning, as have others on this page, the validity of the subject itself. That's why I quote Toynbee. The responses of Akhilleus & Firefly, with which I think I agree, make it easier to appreciate what you propose. It's not a death-threat, right? The work of Thomas Tweed seems to me in its area important & solid scholarship, if under-appreciated, as is sometimes the case with works that don't necessarily reinforce stock assumptions & come with a pretty high cover price. As so often, it's the garbage that attracts attention; and the article as it stands appears to have its share of that. I list some names merely to identify one or two prominent in this particular area of what's been called inter-spiritual understanding, & to imply that their omission would be a major failing in any proper coverage of the topic. I'm not acquainted with the work of Burkhard Scherer, so I'm unable to comment but I'm now quite eager to check him out. With so much else in need of urgent address, Arthur Lillie is too cobwebbed & obscure to warrant detailed attention at this stage but, hey, if someone's eager to do so, why try & stop them! Charles Allen's The Buddha and the Sahibs: The Men Who Discovered India's Lost Religion, though not the work of a professional scholar as such seems to me important & was greeted with more or less unanimous critical acclaim when it appeared a few years back. He almost certainly covers Lillie, but I haven't yet been able to check in my copy. Stephen Batchelor's How the Buddha Came to the West is also worthy of more than a mention. Firefly drawing attention to the structure of the Intelligent Design article (only the structure) - complete with imposing sidebar - enabled me to get, if I understand you aright, what you're proposing. But to go from here to there is like expecting the broken contents of a model aircraft kit to be somehow lashed up to look like Concorde. The article in its present form is an embarrassing rag-bag. If people are gonna do the work, fine. Let's start by sorting through the heap in sequence, from top to tail. When Achilleus says that the present lede's like a "compare & contrast essay" he or she is being charitable. But basic copy-editing's not aeronautical engineering. It's what I used to do for a living; so if no one objects, I'd be happy to go through sorting out syntax etc, bringing some elementary standard of coherence to bear: clearing out the syntactical & obvious rubbish, rather than burning down the admittedly wind-blown hangar. That would at least make it easier for volunteers to then commence the more ambitious heavier work.

P.S. Just noticed that in my first response, above, I meant to say what interests me far more is Christian influence on the Buddhist tradition rather than the converse. Have now corrected the error.Wingspeed (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a good opportunity here. Please do make bold edits to the article and see if you can improve it! Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Providing no one else objects, I'll set to. Wingspeed (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I created a template. What are other editors thoughts and suggestions? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar (or template) looks great. Thanks for that, Firefly. The right place for it just now, though, is surely the Sandbox or/and this page. Clicking on it & getting blanks, newcomers will wonder what on earth is going on! Good to see what it would actually look like in situ, though. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It also occurs to me that basic copy-editing would become a nightmare if people were simultaneously adding/subtracting to a template in real time. It's like putting up all the signposts in Chicago before the city is built, and before there's even a town plan. Let's go one step at a time when it comes to the actual front page. Do you mind if we move the template as a matter of urgency to somewhere less audacious and less vulnerable to wreckage?

P.P.S. Great! You've already moved it. Phew! Was I imagining things?:-) Wingspeed (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Identified another book. Dalai Lama's The Good Heart: A Buddhist perspective on the teachings of Jesus --Firefly322 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Identified another book. Thich Nhat Hanh's Going home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers --Firefly322 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress report: have fashioned an intro. Am now pursuing further sources. Thanks for those two recommendations. As it happens, I'd referred to Thich Nhat Hanh & the Dalai Lama in my rewrite of the opening. That you should come up with them simultaneously bodes well. Shall keep you posted. Wingspeed (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall continue to work on it, but now in a position to upload, as proposed, new lede - prelude to further salvage work. Comes with (see below) PHG's find: a rather apposite opening pic from Commons. All suggestions & brickbats (if not too bruising ;D) welcome. Wingspeed (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

========

INCLUSION OF TABLES:

The tables cannot constitute "Original research" according to wikipedia policy http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

THIS TABLE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE AND CLAIMS BY MANY OF THE SCHOLARS THAT THE LIVES HAVE PARALLELS.--216.27.141.135 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, IP. Did you forget login, or do you prefer not to register? The tables are synthesis. You cannot take facts from different places, create a table and on the basis of that construction draw a conclusion. If scholars claim that the lives have parallels, this should be written up, reporting what each scholar says separately. A variety of statements cannot be merged together to draw a conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But is that true? I was under the impression that the tables were taken from Marcus Borg's book, Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (1999; Duncan Baird Publishers). Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

Christ and Buddha, by Paul Ranson, 1880.

Here is a nice painting by Paul Ranson (1864-1909), which could be used as an illustration to this article. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find! Not sure I'm that enthusiastic about the painting qua painting, but it's just the ticket for this article - particularly since it was done around the time archeological finds in India had confirmed the Buddha to be an historical personage rather than mere myth. Also serves to illustrate reference in my first couple of (new) paragraphs to the growing interest at the time among Western writers & artists in the religions of the Indian sub-continent. I doubt that we could have a better opening image. Have taken the pic into my sandbox. Many thanks again. Wingspeed (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Christian interactions between Greece and Buddhism

I have looked at Kenneth Scott Latourette's books and the other listed in the removed section. None provide support to having such a section neither in title nor in length. In fact, Latourette wrote a book Introducing Buddhism, which states on page 14 "We know nothing from the records of the countries themselves of the missionaries that Asoka claims to have sent to Egypt, NOrth Africa, Syria, and Macedonia." --Firefly322 (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I'm now doubting my actions were warranted, because another source states that Menander I was written about by Plutarch. However this source also states (Religions of the World by J. GOrdon Melton and Martin Baumann ISBN 1-5760-7223-1) that "The rise of Christianity and later of Islam blocked any further exchange until the travels of Franciscan friars to Mongolia in the thirteenth century." (p. 192)--Firefly322 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Source

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions mentions budhhism on pages 49, 68, 162, 175-76, 194, 217, 226-27.--Firefly322 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discovery of Buddhism by the European world

The French historian, specialist of Pakistan and India and professor at Inalco, Jean-Marie Lafont (PhD) wrote an interesting article entitled "La découverte du bouddhisme par le monde européen" ("The discovery of Buddhism by the European world") in Dossiers d'Archéologie No254 June 2000 which nicely covers a lot of the historical background in this article (ancient exchanges between Buddhism and the Mediterranean world). Here are some of the main points he makes (please feel free to include these in the article):

• The influence of the ambassadors of Ashoka on the Mediterranean world may be felt in the philosophy of Hegesias of Cyrene:

"Cyrene, city of king Magas, (was) one of the five cities to which Asoka sent a Buddhism mission. The philosopher Hegesias of Cyrene, nicknamed Peisithanatos, ("the one who persuades people to die") was a contemporary of Magas and was probably marked by the teachings of the Buddhist missionaries to Cyrene and Alexandria. His influence was such that his disciples were prohibited from teaching".

• The Indo-Greek king Menander I's interest for Buddhism is testified by the Milindapanha:

"The interest that Menander I had for Buddhism circa 160 BC is attested by the question he asked to the Monk Nagasena in the Milindapanha".

• Altogether, there were nearly 7 centuries of contact between the Greek and Indian worlds, precisely in the geographical area where primitive Buddhism was transformed into Mahayana Buddhism, interaction which translated into the Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara.
• Influences of Buddhism on the Essenes and various gnostic schools is debated, but that of Buddhism on Manicheism is undisputed, as is, to a large extant, the influence of Manicheism on Christianity.
• A letter of Mani talked about the parinirvana of Jesus.
• Possible (but not demonstrated) influences of Buddhism on Christianity (p.78-79):

- The cult of the relics.

- The very shape of the church over the tomb of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, encircled by a path for processions.

- The birth and the organization of the monastic orders of the primitive church.

- The system of confession, with tarification for penance, similar to what was practiced in Indian Buddhist communities in the 4th century BC.

Cheers PHG (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this source. Has this scholar had much work presented at significant international conferences? Any work published in major English historical journals? What scholars, which journals have critiqued his work? Until a scholar's worked has been seriously vetted (i.e., essentially graded), it's not really useable as a source in wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Lafont is referenced by various authors as a specialist of the history of Pakistan and India Google Books. Some of his work has been praised by Frank F. Conlon, Department of History, University of Washington, Seattle Pdf, where he is described as "Jean-Marie Lafont of the Institut des Langues et Civilizations, Orientales, Paris, a scholar already known for his research on the French in India". Several of his books have been published by the Oxford University Press (Chitra: Cities and Monuments of Eighteenth-Century India from French Archives, New Delhi, Oxford University Press (2001) ISBN 0195657314, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: Lord of the Five Rivers (2002) ISBN 0195661117). Cheers PHG (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This confirms what I have thought for some time (to wit, "Buddhism's alleged influence on Christianity is, at best, an influence on Gnosticism and thereby, at best, very indirect"). See Gnosticism and Buddhism for the best place (IMHO) to put this material. It would be good if we could find a reliable source that specifically states this idea (i.e. Buddhism's contact with the Greek world influencing Gnosticism rather than mainstream Christianity). --Richard (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a Buddhist I have found this article really exaggerated. The article is structured in a thread of isolated dates giving a sensation of photocopy of one religion in another.

I think nobody can discuss influences of Buddhism in Christianism across the time, neither of Hinduism or Taoism in Buddhism, even of Christianism in Buddhism again in Medieval even modern times. That's logical in a historical process. However, we cannot miss the point about the God notion was present in Egypt from 1350 BC with Akhenaton. Many of these influences of course are real. Specially in Christian monastics or in those 30 years missed in the life of Christ. Sure he was learning form many sources. However, Christianism is a different religion with a clear different basis.

Rome Church is a prolongation or Roman, Greece and Egypt priests. If you go to Italy, still you can view some Christian catacombs decorated with Egyptian gods, characters and figures. Early Christians was a time for many sects and ideas defending different views around Christian doctrines. Also, note the Christian Church is a big community with many tendencies and views inside from the beguining.

I mean, we can find around the world many histories about a king who found an strange artifact gived to him by heavens, angels, gods, etc... From Britain to Polinesan islands. These coincidences only point us to a common pattern in the development of such class of important events for some culture. In the same way, we can check that Krishna, Christ, Budhha, etc... all they had common events in their lifes and teachings. No thing strange. On the contrary, it shows there is a common pattern of events surrounding the life of these importnat figures. It is not because a world conspiracy or an ancient hidden photocopy machine.

Other example in the article is the Kuan Yin/Virgin Mary. It is ridiculous when there are tons of literature about this female goddess subject. Even Neanderthal had a sacred mother .

Well, I think the article cannot be deleted because it is interesting and dates and speculations must be preserved. However, maybe somebody with a better English can put some spaces to add more sense and objectivity among them. Metta to everybody. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.79.67 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent books on a possible relation between Buddhism and Christianity

In 1992 Christian and Professor Zacharias P. Thundy wrote a book titled, Buddha and Christ, Nativity stories from the Indian traditions in which Thundy concludes that there was a substantial amount of borrowing by Christianity from Buddhism.

In 2007 Doctor of Asian studies Christian Lindtner published his book Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus. Dr. Lindtner compares the Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist texts with the Greek gospels and determines that the four gospels were reformulated from older Buddhist texts based on gematria values, puns, and syllabic equivalences. Those who have scrutinized his work claim that his gematria values and syllabic equivalences are coincidental and that his puns exist because the Greek and Sanskrit are from the same language family. Those in support of his work claim that is findings are unique and that similar finds could not be made in regard to any other seemingly non-connected literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

bad shape

this article is generally in a bad shape. I tried improving it by making a better introduction. The main problem is that people don't know how to reference something, and that some (buddhist) wikipedians add a lot of low-quality material, and really phrasing things in a long-winded manner.

Saying that "In 2007 Professor Geraldinia published a book on this-and-this subject and he says that thus-and-thus... Other people disagree because... and some people support him because.... "

That's NOT how to do it. It is not encyclopedic, it is very long-winded, it is not readable, it is simply quite bad in style.

Please start to investigate how to make a proper reference like this: . Did you see the little number on top? that's how it should be.

Wish you good luck,

Greetings, Sacca 15:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, with all respect, I believe it is attitudes like yours that have homoginized wiki's pages. If people cannot epitimize others work in their own way then there is nothing altogether new about wiki. Why is it not appropriate to summerize theories under "THEORIES" topic? If you have a problem with, as you write, someones writing style then you should rewrite it in a more "accepted" way, to say that it is not correct is misleading, just as spelling is neither correct or incorrect rather accepted or standard and not. So before you delete the book reviews on relevent theories I ask that you ask two questions, 1. is their anything that is hype or misstatded, 2. should I really delete an edit because it is not "encyclipedic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be anything new. It's intended simply to collect together in convenient form material from reliable sources. Speaking of which, the following has been deleted again:

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Budddhism (2004) (Volume One), page 159, says:

"... speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation."

The 1st time it was deleted on the inadequate ground that it was a direct quotation. The deleter could pefectly well have rephrased it. I did that myself, but it's now been deleted again. I don't know what reason, if any, was given this time. Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the text but in the intro to the "Theories" section rather than the intro to the article. I think this is a more appropriate place for it. --Richard (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, the lead being in its current state. When I put it in before, the lead was quite different. Peter jackson (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"RELIABLE SOURCES" is not only presumptious, we are to blot others of our time? Wiki is new because instead of a small group of editors, we have many, some who dispute the accepted method as being partial. the term "reliable sources" should'nt appear in wiki, just as the word reasonable should not be in the constitution FOR the United States (which it is)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sacca is, unfortunately, correct. The article has serious issues, and I've tried to help rewrite it in the past, only to keep coming up against editors who prefer to keep it in terrible shape. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro does not summarize the article

Consult WP:INTRO. The intro should provide a succinct stand-alone summary of the article. The current intro does not do this.

The reason is that this article originated from Buddhist influences on Christianity and the bulk of this article is still on that topic. The intro, however, provides a very short synopsis of the article title "Buddhism and Christianity" which covers more about interactions between the two religions than about influences between them.

Given prior debates about the NPOV nature of Buddhism and Christianity over Buddhist influences on Christianity, I will not argue for making the intro summarize the current article. Instead, I suggest that we need to expand the article to cover the topics mentioned in the intro.

Doing that is a big task which will radically change the scope of the article and may necessitate re-creating Buddhist influences on Christianity as a subsidiary article. Nonetheless, this is the compromise which has been hashed out over a couple years of AFD debates and it is time that we executed the compromise rather than just giving it lip service.

--Richard (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Buddhist influences on Christianity a neutral title, given the mainstream scholarly view that there was none? Should it be "Alleged ...", or "Theories about ..." or something along those lines? Peter jackson (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there could be two seperate articles, one titled Buddhisms influence on Christianity, and another titled Christianity's influece on Buddhism, but I think this would be a mistake, rather this article, I believe, should be titled, "The first Appearence of Similar Themes from whitin the Buddhist and Christian traditions", this could be even more refined, or this article could be named the Alledged Buddhist influence on Christianity.-hopkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or simply "Buddhism and Christianity" with one section "Parallelisms" and another one "Influences". Any thing without a direct evidence would be parallelism, otherwise an influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.86.1 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats why 'first appearence of similar themes' is more descriptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten per WP:LEAD. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

About the wheel section

just some examples to show this section is a total speculation without basis. Wheel is a common symbol in many religions around the world even before Buddhism:

10.000 b.C http://i6.tinypic.com/8331df5.jpg

Egypt http://showcase.netins.net/web/ankh/wheel1.jpg

Etruscan tomb http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41469000/jpg/_41469268_etruscan.jpg

Roman altar for Jupiter http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7383/altarelasargues0of.jpg

Celtic taranis http://www.wheeloftheyear.com/images/taranis.JPG

Anyone can connect any of them with Christians to conclude in:

- this is a Christian altar for Jupiter or Etruscan deities: http://www.moleiro.com/facsimile_books/Beato-de-Silos-(Beato-de-Lieacutebana)-f.-86v-El-Cordero-y-los-cuatro-seres-vivientes-Facsimile_book-108.jpg

- this is from some ancient buddhist people in Kosovo: http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Imagen:Roue.png

Nosense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.86.1 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all it should be known that Buddhism spread to most of these locals. But it is the eight spoked wheel that the Christians took from the Buddhist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mudra

Unfortunately the arms are missing here

Jesus making the mudra gesture

The article mentions the mudra in passing, but needs to discuss it in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asceticism

The material about asceticism needs to be rewritten or removed as it is a distortion of the Buddhist concept and ignores the Middle Way. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have both published widely on this topic, so it was strange to find them missing from this article. Also, the tables of related sayings that were deleted appear to be sourced to Borg. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

I've added her to the lead to illustrate the second paragraph, but I hope to expand more of her work in the body of the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the lead section

User:Ishmaelblues has twice altered the lead section in a manner that is neither consistent with the MOS (adding footnotes to the header) or with the text that was in the lead before his changes. I have twice engaged Ishmaelblues on his talk page without any response, but he continues to revert. I am therefore starting this discussion here in the hopes that we can resolve the problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

As for pointing out, and minutely describing at what point, how, and why such a connection was made, there may be none who can offer direct textual, epigraphical or any other such evidences deemed satisfactory to modern source criticism, regarding historical figures at the beginning of the Christian calendar, with synchronistic convictions regarding Buddhism and Christianity. Some who have theorized a connection between Buddhism and Christianity vaguely point to certain individuals or groups who, by their brand of doctrine, may have commenced borrowing from one faith to the other, such names as Asoka, Kanishka, the Ptolemys, Nagarjuna, among others appear often in speculative form. The author Godfrey Higgins, in several of his books, claimed that after Asoka's subtle mandate of Buddhist worship, the Brahmins soon chased the Buddhists out of India where they established themselves with the European outposts of Asoka's missionaries.

This is one of the worst paragraphs I have ever seen. It confuses the primary topic in a wishy-washy, milquetoast tone, and makes statements that can never be properly sourced. It sounds as if Charlie Brown himself wrote it. Recommend deletion. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity

Do you want to remove Buddhism and Gnosticism and Parallels between Buddha and Jesus also ? The problems I had about the article Buddhism and Christianity can be summarized with the following :

1. It talks about Jesus instead of Christianity and Buddha instead of Buddhism
2. It gives too much emphasis on Gnosticism instead of Christianity in general.
3. It describes the ancient Greco-Roman world, which, stricly speaking, has nothing to do with either Christianity or Buddhism. ADM (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you:

1. Jesus is to Christianity as Buddha is to Buddhism.
2. Emphasis on Gnosticism is due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. It does not mean that the rest of Christianity is left out.
3. Buddhism and Christianity were both practiced within and during the Greco-Roman world. You may be interested in reading about Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Roman Christianity Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Buddhism does not consider itself to be monotheistic, this is why some scholars have challenged comparisons between Jesus and Buddha, given that the former is part of the dharmic religions. In fact, Jesus is probably closer to the Jehovah of Judaism or the Allah of Islam than to the ancient Buddha.
2. If you're talking about the pre-Christian Greco-Romans, you should maybe check out the entry on mystery cults, which is an academic term for what is known as Paganism. Freemasonry also claims to be a descendent of those primitive mystery cults ; do you see any similarities between Buddhism and Freemasonry ? Or even between Gnosticism and Freemasonry ? ADM (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Are you criticizing the article or some ideas you have about religion? If you have specific criticisms about the article, please raise them. We don't use the talk page to discuss the topic, only how to improve it. If your points above somehow relate to the article, please show me, otherwise I won't address them. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was probably more interested of talking about contemporary interfaith relations instead of doing comparative religion. This article, I think, is written from the perspective of comparative religion, and does not really attempt to describe recent trends in detail such as the development of the inter-religious movement, especially since the time of the Second Vatican Council and its constitution Nostra Aetate. For instance, there have been been several meetings between the Pope and the Dalai Lama, something that would have been impossible before the 1960s. What I had in mind was probably something like Christian-Jewish reconciliation or Islam and Protestantism. ADM (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think comparative religion and interfaith dialogue are two different topics entirely. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, do you think we could have a different entry that would describe contemporary Buddhist-Christian relations ? Do you have any suggestions for a title ? ADM (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you contact WikiProject Buddhism and WikiProject Christianity and ask them on their respective talk pages? Post a message on one, centralizing the discussion, and then point the other project to the main link. I'm still not clear why you think this is the right place to discuss it or to change the scope of the current article. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please dont remove anything. Let us all consolidate. To find the ultimate truth and understanding.

Gospel of Thomas

We must be claer on the nature of the gospel of thomas, which is certianly an early gnostic text, why not label it as such instead of "early christian" this carries the connotation that it was a widely read an accepted gospel, which it never was, except in gnostic circles. So we can call it a gnostic text or an early christian/gnostic text, but early christian by itself is misleading and in error. Ishmaelblues (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Are you claiming that the Gnostics weren't Christians? I'm also not clear on what you mean by "widely read" or "accepted", since prior to canonization, there were many texts in circulation, and this is not under discussion here. Could you please tell me exactly what is misleading or in error, using the actual content in the article and the sources to make your case? It sounds like you are trying to push a specific POV. You say that this wording carries a "connotation", but I'm afraid it does not exist. If you have better sources that describe the problem you see, or think we are missing something, by all means, please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

the gospel of thomas was never a widely read gospel, and it is a gnostic text. Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, nobody has claimed anything was "widely read" so why do you keep saying that? Also, nobody knows what was read and what was not read, simply that canonization of texts did not occur until much later. You need to pay close attention to what the article says, not what you think it says. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

all i am asking for is that it is labeled gnostic along with, early christian, or whatever. It is a gnostic text, there is no reason it should not be labeled so. Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you seem to be asking for many things actually, and your latest edit warring shows that you want to label it "New Testament apocrypha" when that is not the subject of the discussion or in the source text. Please stop trying to force your beliefs into the article and use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i did not add that label, however i have added back the word apocryphal because that is what the gospel is. Concerning the Gnostic label, gnostic implies a specific christianity which the gospel belongs to, we should add this too, what do you think? Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. What does the source say? Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

thr source refers to it as a gnostic text, pagels is a gnostic expert and the wikipedia page refers to it as a gnostic gospel, i really think this is how it should be labeled now. Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The source says nothing of the kind. Please read it again and use quotes to show where it refers to it as "gnostic" and "apocryphal". Your use of apocryphal is not supported in this context, and your continued POV pushing is getting tiresome. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

once again i did not add that it was apocryphal that was not my original edit, i restored it after you erased it for no reason and the gospel is a gnostic text."The Gospel of Thomas is one of the most important Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi" www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html here is a link to pagels book, used as the source http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532 the book is called the gnostic gospels and focuses much of the attention on thomas. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ishmaelblues, it doesn't matter if it was not your "original edit". You restored material that isn't supported by the source, and the book you cite isn't being used as the source in the article. Do you understand that the word "source" refers to the references that appear as footnotes and not as a title of a book? We don't edit Wikipedias based on our beliefs or opinions. We edit based on the sources. The focus here is not on whether the Gospel of Thomas is considered "New Testament apocrypha" or "gnostic" but whether it has similarities with Buddhism. Please try and stay on topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ishmaelblues, this edit doesn't make sense. Whether the Gospel of Thomas is considered "apocryphal Gnostic" is irrelevant to the discussion of Buddhism here. Do you understand? Also, we only use sources that concern themselves with Buddhism and Christianity. I understand that you feel strongly about the Gospel of Thomas being labeled as "apocryphal Gnostic", but it doesn't belong in the lead section, nor does it have anything to do at all with the connection to Buddhism. What you are doing is a special case of poisoning the well, where we are supposed to disbelieve any connection of Buddhism and Christianity simply because they are categorized as "apocryphal Gnostic". It's a silly, childish tactic and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

it is important that people understand the nature of the gospel, especially in relation to the others and that it is gnostic. As far as i am concerned you may remove the apocraphal reference because although true it holds a similar, but less specific connotation as gnostic, in fact i'll remove it. But yes the reader needs more information rather than less and one or two words is not a lengthy digression. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "important that people understand the nature of the gospel"? Especially in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is important for people to understand things, are you implying you do not want people to understand things? thats the point of wikipedia, as for th lead bit you right the lead is far too large it should be split up before going into specific authors and such. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't edit Wikipedia based on what you personally want people to understand. Please review WP:NPOV. I've already asked you to discuss your controversial edits here before you keep changing the article and I'm getting closer to filing an Administrators' noticeboard complaint against you because you are not listening. You began this discussion by claiming that the Gospel of Thomas was not "widely read". According to Ron Cameron (1982), that is false:

The existence of three different copies of the Greek text gives evidence of rather frequent copying of this gospel in the third century..the fact that the Gospel of Thomas was repeatedly referred to by name in church writings of the third and fourth centuries confirms that it was widely read in the early church...the Gospel of Thomas is based on a tradition of sayings which is closely related to the canonical gospels but which has experienced a separate process of transmission. The composition of the Gospel of Thomas, therefore, is parallel to that of the canonical gospels. Its sources are collections of sayings and parables contemporary with the sources of the canonical gospels. In this respect, the Gospel of Thomas can be profitably compared with the Synoptic Sayings Source, common to Matthew and Luke, generally referred to as Q...It is probable that many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas which are not preserved elsewhere also derive from early traditions of sayings of Jesus.[3]

The most neutral term we can use here is "non-canonical". Again, I am going to ask you to stop making controversial changes to this article as your information is simply biased and inaccurate. Use good sources for your edits, please. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

non canonical is a good replacement for apocrayphal. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it would also help if you would do some research on the subject. Try to read authors on both sides to get a balanced POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the New Testament apocryphal wikilink, not Ishmaelblue. The Gospel of Thomas article describes the text as Gnostic and a New Testament apocryphon, and both those articles link back to the text. I'm not concerned whether individual WP editors want to believe that the Gospel of Thomas (primarily consisting of logia attributed to Jesus) is "Christian" or "Gospel", but I am concerned with repeated WP:WEASEL edits trying to dumb-down this article. Both "apocryphal" and "non-canonical" are misleading. The former is overly general ( Apocrypha lists the Gospel of Thomas under the "New Testament apocryphal literature" section) and the latter redirects to New Testament apocrypha. Can we compromise on using something like "Gnostic and New Testament apocryphal Gospel of Thomas"? Keahapana (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

great "New testament apocrypha, gnostic gospel of thomas" is what i wanted in the first place, but i will wait for viriditas to confirm if we should change it. Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Gospel of Thomas in the context of what some call the "New Testament", and referring to biblical literature as "New" and "Old" is problematic in a number of ways. "Non-canonical" is something we can all agree on. We are also not discussing the Gospel of Thomas in terms of the New Testament, so I don't understand why it is being used here. "Apocrypha" is another problematic term that carries more prejudice than "non-canonical". Although I cannot be sure, it is possible that Keahapana has not thought this through. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

it is called New testamnet Apocrypha because it is about the same subjects and people as the New Testament. However, either term is fine with me (New testamnet Apocrypha, Non-canonical), but lets see what Keahapana says. Ishmaelblues (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section

I broke the beginning off after the second sentence or so and the put a heading for the rest so the intro split when the article gets into specifics. Now the article does not look like a blob. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And I asked you to stop doing that, as the lead section was inline with WP:LEAD. Please either review policies and guidelines or feel free to ask questions. Stop editing unilaterally and use the talk page to propose your changes, first. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to review WP:OWN, as well as WP:NPOV. There is no valid reason to remove a brief mention of the fact that Thomas is not an early example of the kind of Christianity any of our readers would have encountered; omitting it only serves to create false impressions. Also, your demand above that sources used in this article must describe both Christianity and Buddhism, or the two together as one topic, is completely arbitrary except for the fact that it limits our sources to cranks, producing a fringe, POV, inaccurate article, which is what this has almost always been. I support Ishmaelblues's changes. A.J.A. (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Ishmaelblues's recent changes are counterproductive and this "blob" is a straw man. Without the salient Pagels quote, the current lead paragraph is less informative and violates WP:LEAD. Edit wars waste time and harm Wikipedia. I agree with Viriditas's suggestion to request help from WP:ANI. Keahapana (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

fine i'll put the two sections back together, it was not even my idea in the first place. Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

old citation tags

the article has one tag from july 2007, concerning "In their book The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy argue that the Therapeutae are possible candidates for the origin of what they characterize as "the legend of Jesus Christ"." i do not own this book and it does not appear to be at my library so i cannot get a page number or anythign for a proper chicago style. The tag is two years old but i thought i would bring it up here and wait a week or so in case anyone can cite and quote it, and judge the reliablity of the source, before i remove it.

also there are 3 tags that are over a year or so, but i'll deal with tha after this one. Ishmaelblues (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)