The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive ChristianityLillie, Arthur
Religion
The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity
Lillie, Arthur
Buddhism; Christianity and other religions -- Buddhism
But the suppressing of genealogies that were not invented until one
hundred years after the Apostles were slumbering in forgotten tombs,
was only a detail of their "heresy." Their gospel makes out Christ to
be not the Logos masquerading in a human form, but a man and a prophet.
"A prophet will the Lord our God raise up unto you from your brethren,"
he says. And prophets can sin, and he can sin, for he was plainly
without the Holy Ghost until his baptism. It comes down, in the Hebrew
gospel, not _upon_, but _into_ him. And he is the Son of God from that
moment, not before.
"Call me not good, for he that is good is one the Father in the
heavens!" Pseudo-Matthew weakens this considerably, "There is none good
but one, that is God."
"He that is good is one." That was the motto of the Essenes of
Jerusalem. Tertullian tells us that certain "unlearned" Christians in
his day protested against the Trinity. "They declare that we proclaim
two or three gods, but they, they affirm, worship only one." (Adv.
Prax. c. 3.) The unlearned were the Church of Jerusalem that still
clung to the text, "He that is good is One."
We come to other "heresies." The early gospel knew nothing of Matthew's
interpolation about John the Baptist eating locusts, because John the
Baptist, as an Essene, could do nothing of the sort. And Jerome tells
us that the wicked Ebionites garbled the passage, Luke xxii. 15, to
make it appear that Jesus actually refused to eat flesh at the Passover
supper.
This is all that can be restored of this in the Ebionite gospel:--
"... Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?"
To this, Jesus answers:--
"Have I desired with desire to eat this flesh, the Passover, with you?"
It is very plain here that Luke is the garbler.
Still more instructive is the question of wine at the Lord's Supper.
Of course, the genuine gospel being written by water drinkers, had no
passage about the "fruit of the vine." But Luke, fortunately, has two
accounts of the celebration in chap. xxii.
"And he took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it
amongst yourselves.
"For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the
kingdom of God has come.
"And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to them,
saying, This is my body which is given for you. This do in remembrance
of me.
"Likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament
in my blood, which is shed for you."
Now it is perfectly plain that verses 17 and 18 have been clumsily
added. They are not in Marcion's version. Mark and Matthew have been
more clever. They have garbled the passage better. Verses 19 and 20
fairly represent, I think, the real Gospel of the Hebrews. Justin says
that in the "Memoirs of the Apostles," were these words:--
"This do ye in remembrance of me. This is my body!"
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account