Here and across similar forums often rages the debate regarding the historicity of Jesus, presented invariably as the Incarnate Son of God; a prophet; a messianic Jew; an apocalyptic messenger; a noble teacher; a lunatic; a trouble maker; a myth; an invention; a semi-historical personage, either an amalgam of or confusion of other, similarly suspect, characters.
Scripture as a 'reference source' likewise comes under continual examination, with the determinations that it is, in part or entirely, fabricated, and again, having been written sometime between 0-200 years after the event, it should be equally suspect.
+++
According to historians generally, there is more 'evidence' (circumstantial or otherwise) pointing to the existence of Jesus as Christianity regards Him, than there is for the existence of either Buddha or Mohammed.
The question arises, do the Buddhists contend with arguments that Buddha either never existed, or if he did his teachings is a complete fabrication? The earliest Buddhist scriptures date from at least 400 years after the death of their founder.
And likewise regarding Islam and the existence of Mohammed and the textual veracity of the Koran.
Then, of course, the Vedic texts could of course be the product of metaphysical insight, or mental disorder?
I wonder, can any Buddhists, Moslems or followers of Oriental traditions generally shed any light on this? Do all religions face this order of inquiry?
Or is it more to do with the general air of popular anti-establishmentism, skepticism and nihilism overtaking Western intellectualism?
Just a thought...
Thomas