Did Jesus really die?

reply to post by AlienBuddha


Its called transmigration of the soul in Buddhism... Buddha didn't specifically "teach" it, but he talked of his previous lives so its a given...

adjensen

I have seen sufficient evidence that I am convinced that Mark is based on Peter's teachings

Then let's see it.

that Luke really wrote his two books

Let's see it. And even if he did it's still hearsay.

and John wrote his,

Let's see it.

And there are TONS of sources that illustrate that the Gospels were not written by the names attributed to them, especially Matthew and John. I can provide you with countless links on the subject but I'm not going to waste my time because I don't know which ones you will accept and which ones you will condescendingly scoff at. So... here's the solution. Go to Google and search "Who wrote the Gospels" and just go through the websites.

But I am curious to see your evidence that the Gospel writers were indeed Matthew, John Mark, Luke, and John.

reply to post by Akragon


He rejected the idea of an individual self/soul. Any references to reincarnation or transmigration of an individual soul in Buddhism are later additions and contradictory to the actual teachings of the Buddha

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The Gospel stories are not fully collaborated in the least bit. And I'm sick of people giving this "Historians agree that Jesus lived" nonsense. Not one, literally not one, historian who was a contemporary of Jesus - meaning lived while he lived and performed his "miracles" - neither Roman or Jewish, wrote one word about Jesus. Not one historian. The earliest historian to allegedly write about Jesus was Josephus and he wasn't born until 37AD which is at least 4 years after Jesus allegedly died, depending on when you date the birth of Jesus. No one has ever produced one historian who was a contemporary of Jesus who ever wrote about him. And the Josephus mention is considered to be a forgery

AlienBuddha
reply to post by Akragon

 

He rejected the idea of an individual self/soul. Any references to reincarnation or transmigration of an individual soul in Buddhism are later additions and contradictory to the actual teachings of the Buddha

As far as I know all writing in Buddhism are compilations of texts...

Now IF he "rejected" the idea of soul transmigration how would recount multiple lives he led?

He taught life is an illusion in which the cycle of life and death will continue until one escapes "samsara".... so to speak

Akragon


Now IF he "rejected" the idea of soul transmigration how would recount multiple lives he led?

He didn't. Those are made-up later additions to the texts. See, the beauty about Buddhism is that we don't have to adhere to the Sutras and stories about the Buddha like they are the Gospels, completely unquestionable. All that really matters is the meat and potatoes of the Dharma. Everything else is take it or leave it.

AlienBuddha

Akragon


Now IF he "rejected" the idea of soul transmigration how would recount multiple lives he led?

He didn't. Those are made-up later additions to the texts. See, the beauty about Buddhism is that we don't have to adhere to the Sutras and stories about the Buddha like they are the Gospels, completely unquestionable. All that really matters is the meat and potatoes of the Dharma. Everything else is take it or leave it.

I see... I take it you're a Buddhist?

Dharma meaning something that's been established in a sense... and where would that "established" way be found?

Likely within the stories of "Buddhist texts"... correct?

or do you just freestyle Buddhism?

AlienBuddha
reply to post by windword

 

Actually the Buddha didn't teach reincarnation. It was a Hindu teaching that he was familiar with but he taught that there is no individual soul/self.

I'm not really sure why WarminIndy is bringing up Hindu belief or positing the fallacious statement that reincarnation is more accepted than resurrection. Someone needs to point out to him that 76% of Americans and 31.5% of the world population identifies as Christian. Now on face value that 31.5% doesn't seem impressive, but it is the highest percentage of religious beliefs worldwide. The next to it in size is Islam with 23.2%. Both Christians and Muslims believe in bodily resurrection. So that's a total of 54.7%. Seems to me like a belief in resurrection completely dwarfs those who believe in reincarnation.

No, I didn't say it was more accepted, except there was a link provided in another thread from someone who does believe it is more. What I was saying is that reincarnation, which is the basis of most Eastern Mysticism, it is widely accepted.

The Buddha did teach that one must achieve Nirvana through a series of reincarnation, which is what Hinduism also teaches. The Buddha taught that to end suffering in oneself, then one must not think about it. My point is that early Hinduism, before tantric cults that led to what we call Hinduism today, actually began as a monotheistic religion AND that even though they claim a billion gods and goddesses, they still believe in ONE Supreme Being.

All the beliefs in reincarnation came AFTER the original Vedic Age of those sages. But since the Vedic Age and the Rig Vedas and the Baghavad Gita all mention the Supreme Being, then it stands to reason that Hinduism in its purest form, is monotheistic. I was pointing out the similarities in the ancient religion.

And because they also believe Lord Krishna (which means Light, incidentally) is the second person in the Trinity, there must have been a common religion before it split off and went in a thousand directions.

The Buddha lived after the Vedic Age, therefore, he was leader of one tantric cult, nothing more. You really have to take it on faith what Prince Guatama taught. You really have to take it on faith that he claimed to reach Enlightenment under that tree. That's really a lot of faith to take it at face value. But do we have the body of Prince Guatama to see if he actually existed? There sure were a lot of disciples that wrote about him as well.

Transmigration of the soul was taught AFTER the Vedic Age. And what is so interesting is that people who take it on faith that the Buddha actually lived, his words are preserved in Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, and people have a problem with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Akragon

AlienBuddha

Akragon


Now IF he "rejected" the idea of soul transmigration how would recount multiple lives he led?

He didn't. Those are made-up later additions to the texts. See, the beauty about Buddhism is that we don't have to adhere to the Sutras and stories about the Buddha like they are the Gospels, completely unquestionable. All that really matters is the meat and potatoes of the Dharma. Everything else is take it or leave it.

I see... I take it you're a Buddhist?

Dharma meaning something that's been established in a sense... and where would that "established" way be found?

Likely within the stories of "Buddhist texts"... correct?

or do you just freestyle Buddhism?

I'm not Buddhist, and even I got what you said....

reply to post by WarminIndy


Buddha did actually live. He was alive around 500 BC, not so long ago. He had scribes that followed him around, writing down what he said, and rich benefactors that built temples in his honor, complete with life like statues of his image, that were done while he was still alive.

www.budsas.org...

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Buddha did actually live. He was alive around 500 BC, not so long ago. He had scribes that followed him around, writing down what he said, and rich benefactors that built temples in his honor, complete with life like statues of his image, that were done while he was still alive.

www.budsas.org...

edit on 9-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

I find it interesting that the same criteria listed in the article you have provided also applies to Christ, but you discard it completely in one case and embrace it in the other. Fairly typical, I suppose.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I find it interesting that the same criteria listed in the article you have provided also applies to Christ, but you discard it completely in one case and embrace it in the other. Fairly typical, I suppose.

As I stated earlier. "Jesus Christ" most certainly did not exist, however, Jesus the Nazarene may have. Personally, I think Jesus, from the Essenes sect of the Nazoreans did exist. But, most certainly the biblical character of Jesus, and all the magical and mythical stories surrounding him, aren't historic.

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I find it interesting that the same criteria listed in the article you have provided also applies to Christ, but you discard it completely in one case and embrace it in the other. Fairly typical, I suppose.

As I stated earlier. "Jesus Christ" most certainly did not exist, however, Jesus the Nazarene may have. Personally, I think Jesus, from the Essenes sect of the Nazoreans did exist. But, most certainly the biblical character of Jesus, and all the magical and mythical stories surrounding him, aren't historic.

I apologize. I was under the impression you were in total denial regarding the historicity of jesus. Personally, I would take contention with the fact that you feel "Jesus Christ" and Jesus the Nazarene are not the same individuals. Christ is simply a title (as adjensen already pointed out) and the "Chrestus" issue is not sufficient to separate the two when one considers all the other accounts of Jesus life, ministry, and death.

Akragon


I see... I take it you're a Buddhist?

Yep. That's what my name means lol. It's a combination of my love for the Dharma (as opposed to "Buddhism" which are two different things) and aliens.

Dharma meaning something that's been established in a sense... and where would that "established" way be found?

Likely within the stories of "Buddhist texts"... correct?

I know what you are getting at. The Dharma is the Buddha's teachings. Each person has to approach the Dharma in their own way. Some people take superstitious teachings and run with them. Others go for a more stripped down Dharma. It's in each person's personal preference. The Dharma is not supposed to be dogmatic.

reply to post by AlienBuddha


So are you saying you reject transmigration of the soul or reincarnation?

You said Buddha didn't teach it, but its clearly defined throughout Buddhist literature even from the older texts...

And personally I find it to be the only logical way

reply to post by DeadSeraph



No, he's saying that Jesus Christ is the fictional, hyped-up, religious distortion, a fictional representation and exaggeration of Jesus the Nazorean (as he calls him), the real, living historical person who probably had very little in common with the character known as Jesus Christ.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

No, he's saying that Jesus Christ is the fictional, hyped-up, religious distortion, a fictional representation and exaggeration of Jesus the Nazorean (as he calls him), the real, living historical person who probably had very little in common with the character known as Jesus Christ.

While I disagree with that completely, It is a much more reasonable position than others have taken.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Buddha did actually live. He was alive around 500 BC, not so long ago. He had scribes that followed him around, writing down what he said, and rich benefactors that built temples in his honor, complete with life like statues of his image, that were done while he was still alive.

www.budsas.org...

edit on 9-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

And you find it hard to grasp that Jesus lived 500 years later, that scribes followed Him around writing down what He said and rich benefactors threw parties He was invited to and one of them lent a tomb, and then churches were built, complete with His image?

So why is it hard to believe Jesus existed but you say Buddha did when the same thing happened here? Show me the evidence outside of what Buddha's disciples said about him. That's the challenge you give us, and when we present the evidence you dispute it. So show me the evidence that Prince Guatama existed outside of what his disciples said about him.

reply to post by WarminIndy

And you find it hard to grasp that Jesus lived 500 years later, that scribes followed Him around writing down what He said and rich benefactors threw parties He was invited to and one of them lent a tomb, and then churches were built, complete with His image?

No they didn't. The gospels weren't written during the lifetime of Jesus. They were written way after this death, in another country, Greece, and in another language, Greek. There are so many contradictions and holes, interpolations and additions, an weird stories that no one was present to retell, in the gospels,that they just can't be trusted.

Nobody built temples in honor of Jesus or made statues of him while he was alive. In fact, making an image of Jesus was forbidden in early church times. Nobody even knew what he looked like by the time they decided to deify him.

The contemporary history of Jesus, if he existed at all, is non-existent outside the Bible.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And you find it hard to grasp that Jesus lived 500 years later, that scribes followed Him around writing down what He said and rich benefactors threw parties He was invited to and one of them lent a tomb, and then churches were built, complete with His image?

No they didn't. The gospels weren't written during the lifetime of Jesus. They were written way after this death, in another country, Greece, and in another language, Greek. There are so many contradictions and holes, interpolations and additions, an weird stories that no one was present to retell, in the gospels,that they just can't be trusted.

Nobody built temples in honor of Jesus or made statues of him while he was alive. In fact, making an image of Jesus was forbidden in early church times. Nobody even knew what he looked like by the time they decided to deify him.

The contemporary history of Jesus, if he existed at all, is non-existent outside the Bible.

The Gospels were written shortly after the crucifixion. The earliest writings were Paul's and manuscripts for other gospels place them within the lifetime of those who could have had contact with Jesus. Further, Where have you learned that the earliest manuscripts were written in greece? Because some of them were written in greek does not mean they were written in greece. There are manuscripts written in aramaic as well.