Jesus was a Buddhist

[Change]

So, how many of you out there have read non-cannon Gospels? As you mgiht know the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church roughly 1500 years ago, but you just might ask yourself, what didn't they include? Some of the writings that were not included were the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip ([url]http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels.htm[/url]). These gospels outline the fact that Jesus was a mortal man who basicaly woke up in the same sense that Shakyamuni Buddha and Mohammed woke up. They are very interesting, anyone want to comment? And I will ask, is the messenger mroe important than the message?

[Mist]

[color=crimson][size=1] The text is ver interesting, but I daresay the source is rather questionable. You recieved this off of a random sight on the Internet, correct? After all, who knows, maybe it was all made up. But if the "texts" are true than I would have to say it would change my opinion on religion; there is no [b]one[/b] powerful being.[/color][/size]

[Semjaza]

There are many random gospels no one takes as true scripture at this point. The Infant Gospels for example, which were about Jesus as a child and the abuse of his miraculous powers.

I don't know how two unincluded books could really affect anyone's beliefs, but whatever.

[Guest screw_top_baby]

There are some that tell of aliens......those too are left out.

[Semjaza]

Those are the writings of Enoch. They aren't about aliens really, but he explains flying objects that people have twisted into alien/UFO stories to suit their own agendas.

[RicoTranzrig]

[COLOR=darkblue]I think they are called Gnostic gospels. Thomas is interesting because it carries a lot of Jesus' quotes...but accuracy is highly doubtful. The people who compiled the Bible tried their best to preserve the original stories. Even if the acuraccy isn't 100 percent, there are certain elements of the story that are always consistent...like this man named Jesus who was a Jew and revealed the new covenant with God and Humanity.

I think the only person who "woke up" out of the three was Siddhartha Buddha (Shakyamuni is the society that he grew up in). Jesus already had knowledge about God from birth/early childhood. And Muhammad recieved the knowledge of God in subsequent dreams throughout his life and had them written down.[/COLOR]

[Change]

Uh...Random internet site it is not :P I could go out and buy a hardcopy of the Apocrypha, but online translations are cheeper. The Apocrypha is the "Hidden Book" in Hebrew. It's all the cut books that didn't make the Bible.

Lol, well I could dispute the accuracy of anything. People did not talk in Gospel verse now...The fragment of the Gospel was found in 1945, and it is dated to being writen only 20 years after Jesus's death in Arameic. If you check out Thomas and Phillip they offer a perspecitve that is very much like a Buddha conciousness awakening. They say that Jesus was not born the son of God but that he became so. Also the Gospel of Philip is more like actual non-religious writings and how people would have spoken back then.

As for Siddhartha Buddha, that is incorrect. He was prince Siddhartha, but after his awakening he because Shakymuni Buddha (Shakymuni=enlighted one of the Shaky clan). Everyone forgets about the first part, so it just gets shortened to Buddha. Muhammed awoke in the same way as Buddha, he was a caravan dirver, but in his spare time he had a little can he went to to meditate (alot). And with enough introspection, he awoke, and he heard the voice say "write."

I doubt the entire Bible because it was made by men. Men chose what sotries they wanted to use to carry a message, but wheter of not that was Jesus's total message is highly dubious. Most of the New Testemat was not writen until 60 years after his death, now I knwo some of you mught say that storied soculd be preserved accturalty, but you have to remember that this is an oral tradition bassed society, it's like playing telephone over 3 generations. But then you come to the real imprtant question, if Jesus were not the son of God, is his messages stil worthy, or would you all drop it?

As for Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being exactly alike, they are. Each recived an awakening arround age 30 and basicaly waht they all woke up to was God so to speak. They stoped seeing the world as dualist and started seeing the world of the spirit and the flesh as one and the same. They also seemed to see that we are all ablicaly interconnected and "one."

[Justin]

Sigh...

If you'll ever look any deeper(as I've been told sooo many times by non-Christians to do, so I have) you'll find only a very small percentage of the wide range of "Books of the Bible" can be backed up by any documents other than those in print--and they're all in the Bible.

I find it laughable that people try to say to me "Yes, I believe in God and that He inspired the Bible. But I think it [i]must[/i] have been altered by years and years of human interferance." Could not the same God who inspired the original text also [i]protect[/i] His own doctrines? Of course He can.

This is the little understood principle of Christianity--Our God is all-powerful. His hand is in all the happenings of the world, in one way or another. Most especially in the matter of His own Word.

So now I challenge you to look deeper. Deeper into Christianity. And to gather the facts...not the theories...not the opinions. Or just wait until someone challenges me to bring them forth myself--since that is [i]bound[/i] to happen, lol.


-Justin

[Change]

Heh, there is a book out called Jesus and Buddha, it shows NT stuff right next to dharma. As for Justin, you thinking is purely Mideval, taking the answer and then coming up with the fact, but then again your a fundie so I expected this from you. I doubt what the Bible say, sure, what rational person wouldn't take a 4-2 thousand year old manuscript with a grain of salt. And that's not to mention the stuff they left out. If you notice, quite a bit was left out actualy, and the Chuch MADE the Bible, not God. They pick and chose which sotires and who's writings went in.

I have a chalenge for you. Chanlenge your faith. I ahve great respect for faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. Don't become to attached to your metaphore that it blinds you.

[Mist]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i]
[B]Uh...Random internet site it is not :P I could go out and buy a hardcopy of the Apocrypha, but online translations are cheeper. The Apocrypha is the "Hidden Book" in Hebrew. It's all the cut books that didn't make the Bible.

Lol, well I could dispute the accuracy of anything. People did not talk in Gospel verse now...The fragment of the Gospel was found in 1945, and it is dated to being writen only 20 years after Jesus's death in Arameic. If you check out Thomas and Phillip they offer a perspecitve that is very much like a Buddha conciousness awakening. They say that Jesus was not born the son of God but that he became so. Also the Gospel of Philip is more like actual non-religious writings and how people would have spoken back then.

As for Siddhartha Buddha, that is incorrect. He was prince Siddhartha, but after his awakening he because Shakymuni Buddha (Shakymuni=enlighted one of the Shaky clan). Everyone forgets about the first part, so it just gets shortened to Buddha. Muhammed awoke in the same way as Buddha, he was a caravan dirver, but in his spare time he had a little can he went to to meditate (alot). And with enough introspection, he awoke, and he heard the voice say "write."

I doubt the entire Bible because it was made by men. Men chose what sotries they wanted to use to carry a message, but wheter of not that was Jesus's total message is highly dubious. Most of the New Testemat was not writen until 60 years after his death, now I knwo some of you mught say that storied soculd be preserved accturalty, but you have to remember that this is an oral tradition bassed society, it's like playing telephone over 3 generations. But then you come to the real imprtant question, if Jesus were not the son of God, is his messages stil worthy, or would you all drop it?

As for Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being exactly alike, they are. Each recived an awakening arround age 30 and basicaly waht they all woke up to was God so to speak. They stoped seeing the world as dualist and started seeing the world of the spirit and the flesh as one and the same. They also seemed to see that we are all ablicaly interconnected and "one." [/B][/QUOTE]



[color=crimson][size=1] *shakes head*

You're either a genius, a convincing liar, or very, very bored.[/color][/size]

[Change]

genius...no, well informed because of bordem...So somewhere in between it all, just like everything else in life...I read/listen to alot of Joseph Campbell, so like him I start to see the symbols/motiefs/connotation of all myths and stories.

[Justin]

I have questioned my faith. To assume I've been this way my entire life if ignorant. I was far more doubtful than even you are of the Church, the Bible, God and Christianity in general. Many people here, I'm sure, can remember when I definately wasn't this way.

Again, as I said before, what you're trying to say(or at least what I'm gathering) is that you believe God had the power to tell men what to write originally--but not the power to protect that writing from other men later on down the line. That borders on contradiction.

Like I said, you can no more convince me that man alone created the Bible than you can convince me that the sky isn't blue--God's hand is in everything, in one way or another.

And again, I don't just find it happy circumstance that the books in the Bible are the only ones with any archealogical evidence to back them up. Faith may be my shield, Change, but fact is what I polish it with.

Here's a table comparing the number of ancient manuscripts backing up the NT, compared to those backing up other texts considered to be pretty reliable.

[b][u]Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings Author [/u][/b]
Written
Earliest Copy
Time Span
# Manuscripts.

Caesar
100-44 B.C.
900 A.D.
1,000 yrs
10

Plato
427-347 B.C.
900 A.D.
1,200 yrs
7

Thucydides
460-400 B.C.
900 A.D.
1,300 yrs
8

Tacitus
100 A.D.
1100 A.D.
1,000 yrs
20

Suetonius
75-160 A.D.
950 A.D.
800 yrs
8

Homer (Iliad)
900 B.C.
400 B.C.
500 yrs
643

New Testament
40-100 A.D.
125 A.D.
25-50 yrs
24,000



Now, I won't deny that Jesus' teachings are similar to Buddha's(and I'd like to know what that book is called, by the way. I'd like to have a look at it). Obviously, Buddha was a smart man; but the most important difference is Jesus' saving Grace. His Blood. Fundie Buddhists have a lot of good teachings, and a lot of good principles--like a lot of other religions in this world--but none have Jesus' Blood. And that, my friend, is what saves.

You ask to me to question my faith--I tell you I've done all the questioning there is to do. There's no question you can bring me that I wouldn't have asked a year and a half ago. You don't learn by doubt, you learn by seeking. And I'll seek until the end.

-Justin

[Change]

lol..."Those who know do not say-those who don't know say" I see it more as Zeite Gheist from ancient cultures. The problem is today people get to attached to the metaphore for religions that should have died in their times. The people butcher the metaphore because they see denotation instead of connotation.

The book is called "Jesus and Buddha" (It really was pretty nifty). You might also want to pick up Joseph Campbell's "Occidental Mythology." It's nice to see a little historical inacuracy and a little commonality. "Buddhism for Dummies" is also nice.

As for Jesus's blood...Heh, the resurection was before and the death after...Lol, you have more faith in the messenger and not the message, and that is where I see flaw in your metaphore. You immitate the messenger and feel it will save you, when in actuality as those Apocryphal document point out, YOU SHOULD BECOME THE MESSENGER! Now I'm not saying become Jesus in a day, nor am I saying that faith in the messenger is a bad thing, but I am saying that it is somewhere inbetween the the two.

Time heals all, it also does horrible things in an oral tradition, really.

I have great respect for faith, but doubt is what get's you an education. You read this denotivly instead of connotivly, doubt implies searching. You have arrived at conclusion, you have stoped seeking, now all you seek to do is defend your conclusion. Faith is a blinding shield, like I said it promotes Mideval thinking where you take the answer and make the facts fit it vs. Enlightened thinking where you take facts and them find your answer. It promoting this thinking it robbs valitity from your arguments.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

First of all, Jesus was never a mortal man who woke up in any sense. He knew exactly who he was.

Second, no one has ever been able to actually prove the bible wrong. Not one person.

Also, the book of morman had a bunch of stuff about re-incarnation in it, but the worm council removed all of that. Thing was, this book was not originally part of the Bible, and has many errors that contradict what the Bible originally said i.e. Jesus being Saten's brother is a definate wrong.

Second, there is only ONE son of God. Sure, you could carry out the message, but it is impossible to become the Messenger himself, because it clearly stated that there was only ONE messenger.

Besides, these "Facts" you speak of. Are they really fact? Sounds more like an opinion to me. As justin said, there is very little to back them up. But there is a lot of things to back up the Bible, like the fact that every single prediction made in it comes true. Everyone interprets the bible differently. Some people try to relate it to some other religion. People read it, then ASUME things that were not said.

Sure, there are some similarities, but he could no be a Buddhist because A) He said he was a Jew himself and B) Everything said about reincarnation in the Book of Morman could be rebutted with the single fact that it was written by a chicken theif, that it said that Jesus was the reincarnation of the Ark Angle. That would be impossible because Jesus talked to the Ark Angle more than once.

FYI Justin, you would need to prove facts that are actually written in the bible and can't be twisted in order to rebute this arguement, and not you faith in your relationship with god. Then again, it is nearly pointless to convince someone's opinion to change it, as they will always think like that..

[Change]

You belief is opinion to the core, and I think it is reading the wrong metaphore, picking and chosing what facts suit you, and that's fine. Start from conclusion and work your way back. The Bible is not factual, it is pure Zeit Gheist. It is pure myth!!! Adam and Eve were the Babylonian God's Marduke and Ishtar, Abraham was a Zoroastrian from Babylon after all. Moses never existed, there is no historical data to back up wandering in the desert for 40 years, there is no historical data to support when exodus happened. But if you look at the METAPHORE, you see it is the decent of the patriarch into the land of the dead and what comes of the land is the united Hebrew people.

And yes he could have been a Buddhist. They actualy sent missionares as far as Egypt, but again this is a dennotive mistake, my connotation thoughtout has been one of universal human spirituality and awakening in the same sense, not that he actualy was a Buddhist. Although he could have easily traveled to India from age 12-29.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Moses existed because there is a mark where the rock was carved away in a mountain. A pretty much Square engravement where, according to the bible, it was supposed to be.

And what? What says that your opinion is fact?

[Change]

What says your opinion is fact? What gives your argument more validity, the fact that more people in the world are afraid to think and let a church think for them? Just because more people belive it doesn't make it fact. I say that my date in in between two extreams, where it is ballenced.

Just because a rock existes where the Bible says it does does not make a symbolic figgure exist.

[conpiracymonki]

[QUOTE][i][size=1]Change:[/i]
[B]You belief is opinion to the core..Adam and Eve were the Babylonian God's Marduke and Ishtar, Abraham was a Zoroastrian from Babylon after all. Moses never existed, there is no historical data to back up wandering in the desert for 40 years, there is no historical data to support when exodus happened.[/size][/B][/QUOTE][b][size=1]Not to offend you somehow or anything, but it seriously sounds like you're just jumping into hideous conclusions with those ones right there.[/b]

And um.. what does "[i]Zeit Gheist[/i]" mean? >.>[/size]

[Change]

Zeit Gheist="Spirit of the Times" And no I have not arrived at conclusion because I doubt the very notion of conclusion.