It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
There have been claims of the Christian Messiah, Christ Jesus of Nazareth, having gone to the East and studied under wise gurus during his "unwritten years" where there is no viable account of what happened then. This might be true, but I doubt it. What would even bring Jesus to go that far, to learn philosophies barely spoken of at that time and place of his life?
Firstly, there is no physical evidence that Jesus existed (although I don't doubt he existed), much less that he made a long journey to the East and then returned.
So, assuming he did exist, and didn't obtain his teachings from the East, how do they then show themselves to be so congruent that it would no doubt seem otherwise?
Most who have even just dabbled in Eastern thought systems and religions understand what the universal conscious is, or a singular conscious. I've heard it likened to islands, tipped above the water, giving the illusion of independent existence while being in the Buddhist concept of Pratityasamutpada, or dependent arising.
In this way, it wouldn't be such a stretch to infer that the teachings of the Buddha are not alone or unique, but that this has been floating around for an unimaginably long time. Innumerable eons even.
Therefore, concluding that Jesus had this knowledge simply by becoming enlightened through some means, which may or may not somehow have been brought on by Eastern philosophy, the we must draw the theory that Jesus did not teach others that he himself was the son of God, but a son of God, or God. This means we are all God, and thus Jesus was teaching how others may realize their own true underlying nature, one that is pure and has virtuous merit.
This has radical implications regarding the Christian church. If Jesus taught this as such, the church have been involved in basically taking a wise teacher and philosophy and deifying him, putting him upon a pedestal and implying that no other man may ever claim Godhood. Jesus never set out to create a religion in his name, and never explicitly said so. If he did, what would that say about the man himself?
This also says something far more powerful about Jesus: He didn't just die for us. Far from it. He reached such an enlightenment, that he set out to expose the hypocrites of his time, and for what he believed in, he was murdered.
The issue with this post will ultimately be Christians attempting to explain to me how Jesus was really what they claim him to be, or even possibly attacking me. I've been down this road before. But know that I'm not attacking your religion. I'm simply asking questions to doubts that arise in me. So please be civil.