Was Jesus A Buddhist?

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
As a fundamentalist agnostic, I don't believe Jesus being the son of God but accept that he brought new ideas to the western world. Reading between the (heavily opiniated) text of the New testament, it actually makes sense that he visited India and took many of the preachings.

Ignore Paul literal reading of the bible, and the anaolgy to create "heaven on Earth" can easily be interpereted as bettering oneself.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by templar knight
 


What is a fundamentalist agnostic? That sounds interesting to me.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
I think Jesus was able to understand a little more then the Buddhist knowledge...

I dont think Jesus stopped when he found Nirvana...I think he discovered there is more...always, there is more....but what the Buddha understood has its purpose and has wisdom's and can offer much growth for any soul. It teaches how to detach ones self from the material worlds...which that in itself will teach the soul many many things that are beyond this world and being.


You're in dangerous territory here. You have a limited grasp of Buddhism, but are quick to judge and pit one belief system against another. The historical Buddha never "stopped" after he was enlightened and "found" Nirvana. He also clearly stated that you should be fully immersed in your current life. As a Buddhist you are supposed to fully embrace and learn from your life condition, be it as a princess or beggar.

I just think it's juvenile to say that one belief system is better than the other. While you can certainly have your personal preferences and affinities, you shouldn't confuse that with premature judgement and uneducated statements.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Nichiren]



Not sure how you see me saying one belief systen is better then the other. I personally dont have a religious based belief...but I am more a mix of many. I surely do have a limited understanding of Buddism....for it is not the one I grew up around.

Mabey Budda did talk about transfiguring/transforming ones earthly body into a light body....if that is so I would love for someone to advise me of that.

I also never gave any assumption that Buddha didnt teach to not be a part of the real world....I said that the understandings that are taught is to not 'cling' to or become 'attached' to the material world. We can be a part of things around us in the most honest way we know how while trying to always do the 'better' thing for others before ourselves....but also at the same time, we can be very aware that it is only our earthly body that is a part of the physical world....which helps us to not take anything for granted and helps us be one with nature instead of taking advantage of nature.

The only big difference I see (difference does not mean better then or not) is that Jesus talked ALOT of transforming ones self for a higher realm/existence. Literally, like a mysterious message of the alchemy of the soul.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by calihan_12
heres an interesting fact to ponder. .

my boyfriend lived in india for a year, and met a lot of people, including religious figures.

he went to a temple in the mountains in india where they have records of a man by the name of jesus (obviously this was back when he would have been alive) who came through with a few people and said he was on a conquest and wanted to learn about the buddhist ways from a buddhist monk.

They have a recordbook of it, dating all the way back to the time jesus was supposedly alive.

if this is true... which i honestly believe it makes a lot of sense... then theres the answers to all your questions. Was he the son of god? No. Did he bring about new views of life and religion to a place that never heard them before? Yes. Therefor, he was seen in a different light.


jesus was enlightened no he was not a buddist just because he wanted to learn something doesnt make him a buddist it means they wanted to know the way they were so he could easily convert them and show them how they were wrong . a "conquest" accept not of war but of knowledge



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
jesus was enlightened no he was not a buddist just because he wanted to learn something doesnt make him a buddist it means they wanted to know the way they were so he could easily convert them and show them how they were wrong . a "conquest" accept not of war but of knowledge


So, you talked to him and asked him about being a Buddhist. Please do tell ...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
uhhhh yeah he was a jew, thats what enlightened him was his knowledge of god ehhh... through the qurran and the torah and the talmud. jewish scriptures well thats what he taught anyways right? he taught judaism if god wanted him to be a buddist he would have been born as a buddist wouldnt he have?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


The Buddha's goal for all mankind is enlightenment. You should really do some research into the Buddhist philosophies. It will blow your mind and broaden your understanding. I'm a Nichiren-Buddhist, but by no means do I presume that we "own" the truth and the other branches are wrong. Explore and you will gain ...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


Sorry, but you are wrong:

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

Source: www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Deny ignorance. Thank you!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by make.changes
 


Sorry, but you are wrong:

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

Source: www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Deny ignorance. Thank you!



pharisees where phoenican priests as far as im aware your wrong on the fact that you say jesus was located around asia, he was located in bethlehem jews or pretty accurately described as judaens were located in and around jerusalem. jesus and his family traveled to jerusalem during passover, which was a fairly short trip. seeming how you think jesus was somehow born around asia is not even close to jerusalem would be a grueling trip not very capable for as young as jesus was when you traveled to jerusalem. so just because you just did five minutes of research doesnt mean you know what your talking about.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


i know much about buddism, you come a cross way to cocky and snarky, you should learn about me because im kind and loving person i li=ove trying to enlighten people and dont say that buddists try to enlighten everybody it would be a lie. true buddas dont enlighten people very often in fact they very rarely try to teach people the whole truth which they cannot do there are different levels of enlightenment.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


First of all you should learn how to read properly ( the quote doesn't say that Jesus was born in Asia) and then, since you are a scholar of Buddhism, at least spell Buddha or Buddhism correctly. I'm obviously not enlightened and have no patience with your kind ...

But much love anyway



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Perhaps the best way to say this is that Jesus was not a buddhist ...

Jesus was a buddha.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Thank you!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The 'operational capabilities' of a 'buddha' are rarely discussed -- for the simple reason that the state of 'buddahood' is totally inconceivable to the 'ordinary person' ( read : you and me ) ...

The one main 'quality' of a buddha might be described as -

A buddha is a 'perfect' teacher -- one who is able to perfectly lead every living being to happiness ( read : liberation ) in the way perfectly suited to that particular person or living being ... ( evidently, according to certain schools of Buddhism, living beings such as cows, for instance, are 'persons' also ).

For instance, if a buddha were speaking to a large crowd of people who were all assembled together from many regions of the world, each individual present in the crowd would hear the buddha's words in his own native language ...

Another 'quality' which is often mentioned is that a buddha has 'full knowledge of the three times' ( past, present and future ) ...

On a somewhat more 'esoteric' level, the Tibetans at least, have very detailed information on the 'buddhas body', which is extremely special, and seems to be something akin to a 'perfect analogue' of the entire cosmos ...

Was Jesus a 'perfect buddha' ?

Well, if he wasn't, then he was pretty darned close to it ...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
The 'operational capabilities' of a 'buddha' are rarely discussed --


That made me laugh
I will remember that term applied to a Buddha!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by visible_villain
The 'operational capabilities' of a 'buddha' are rarely discussed --


That made me laugh
I will remember that term applied to a Buddha!

Happy to have 'brightened your day' !




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by calihan_12
 


This india story is just another attempt to take away Jesus' Divinity, yes he is the son of God and is God, this is my opinion, at least I put that at the end of my opinions unlike the op who states their opinions and claims they are fact.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


The OP clearly states: "if this is true, then ..." Look up the word "if".

How come you can't read properly?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
you are ridiculous nichiren i thought you couldnt give such short responses, but any ways jesus is gods son not god, but anyways is divine lets hear about how buddists could perform all of the miracles the apostles could, wait they couldnt disciples of budda cant do nearly as much as disciples of jesus, but yes they can set themselves on fire and they can heat blankets that helps save the world. NOT!!!! : )



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
It could be that Jesus, while born in Bethlehem, was actually raised in Egypt, and grew up with access to the extensive multi-cultural libraries in Alexandria. While there, he would have come across many different writings delineating many different philosophies. He also might have delved into the more occult sciences, which would have given him power to perform "miracles," control demons, and even raise the dead.

While people tend to give the message of Jesus more weight these days, a quick look at the Gospels shows that a huge percentage of the texts focus on the magic work. It's the demon casting and witchcraft (as well as Jesus's claim to be as powerful a sorcerer as Solomon), that cause him and his group to draw the attention of the powers that be. There's even an indication that Jesus himself was possessed by a demon, which could be why you read of him preaching peace one day, and about burning the whole world down another day.

The more you actually read the Gospels, the more you can see that the sorcery and necromancy eventually spun everything out of control. There may have been a Buddhist element to it. The demon Mara was a known temptress of Gautama Buddha. But it was likely more a combination of Egyptian, Hebrew, and Arabic sorcery that created all the upheaval.





top topics
 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join