Buddhism in the Bible.

reply to post by oktopus


You didn't give me any advice... this is exactly what im talking about...

I don't know if you're just delusional or you're just trying to annoy people...

perhaps you're just a child looking for kicks as I've already suggested

Whatever the case maybe... I would be much easier if I could just reach through the screen and give your head a shake, but that isn't going to happen...

Im trying to help you here... seriously

I don't want or need your advise because most times you can't even create a logical sentence...

Think about what you post... think hard if you have that ability

then reply to people... You'll find most are more receptive when you do this

reply to post by zardust

So do you dismiss the resurrection? As if he wasn't alive?

I don't dismiss it...

Im actually more or less undecided on that issue, because it doesn't matter if he resurrected or not...

His resurrection does not change the message he gave...

Also, Paul is the only witness to his "revelation".... and I can not take the word of a Pharisee

IF Jesus taught him personally as he claimed, he would have had the same teachings as Jesus did when he was alive, but there isn't a trace of Jesus teachings in all of Pauls letters

reply to post by Akragon


I just gave you 2 examples of Paul teaching the same thing as Jesus.

Also why should Paul say the exact same thing as Jesus, especially if he is midrashing on Jesus' message. Explaining and expanding on, without saying the same is how I see it.

How about when Jesus said "you search the scriptures daily because in them you think you will find eternal life, these speak of me", or on the road to Emmaus when he opens the scripture and shows them how they point to him.

This is the brunt of Pauls message, he expands on this concept of revelation or unveiling, when he says "to this day their minds are veiled", or "the letter kills but the spirit gives life". These are the exact same concepts with different words.

reply to post by zardust

I just gave you 2 examples of Paul teaching the same thing as Jesus.

I could give you 2 examples of Buddha's teachings in the bible... does that mean Jesus appeared to Buddha and gave him a crash course in spirituality?

Also why should Paul say the exact same thing as Jesus, especially if he is midrashing on Jesus' message. Explaining and expanding on, without saying the same is how I see it.

I don't see why one would have to expand on what Jesus said... he said all that was needed

How about when Jesus said "you search the scriptures daily because in them you think you will find eternal life, these speak of me", or on the road to Emmaus when he opens the scripture and shows them how they point to him.

I won't deny there are certain things that are written about him in prophecy from the OT...

What does that have to do with what we're talking about here?

This is the brunt of Pauls message, he expands on this concept of revelation or unveiling, when he says "to this day their minds are veiled", or "the letter kills but the spirit gives life". These are the exact same concepts with different words.

Where did Jesus say the letter kills?

And if this is the case, how would the "gospels" give life?

The only way we know anything about Jesus is from "letters" written by those where apparently witnesses to his life, or at the very minimum, dictated to people who could write them down... everything we know comes from an oral tradition which stems from those who knew him... IF the letter kills as Paul says... we're all screwed, because everything we have is by the letter...

Yes the spirit gives life, that is a basic idea of what Jesus taught... Paul could have easily picked that concept up from the actual followers of Jesus...

he also said this though

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And we get those words from where? The letter...

I find that Paul just added confusion to the message, his witing is unnecessary... and its not that I don't understand Paul either, I just don't agree with what he wrote... Theres absolutely no evidence that Paul was taught by Jesus... if it were true his letters would reflect that concept but they don't...

reply to post by Akragon


Only those with eyes to see = the spirit gives life

The word became flesh and tabernacled in us. = And we all with unveiled faces (the veil in the temple that is Jesus flesh) are reflecting the glory of the Lord.

Jesus spoke in parables, WHY?

So that the wise would be foolish. This is the dichotomy of letter vs. Spirit. The stumbling block (Jesus words) is foolishness to the (rational, carnal mind) gentiles. (Pauls words)

Many more things I have to say to you but you can't bear them now (Jesus). I thought everything he said while alive in this body of flesh was all we need? But they couldn't handle it yet. Why? Their mind was still veiled(Paul)

Did the indwelling of the HS not change anything? This indwelling or tabernacling, The Holy Spirit came and tabernacled in the bride, as had happened when the HS tabernacled in Jesus. What was the HS? The seed that impregnated Mary as shown in the gospels.

What does Paul talk of in Galatians? The promised seed, in Abraham the type of Father and Isaac the promised son, or seed.

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who calls “Abba! Father!” 4:7 So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.

This is what John spoke of when the word became flesh. When the logos (man of heaven) became flesh (man of dirt). This is a word picture of the temple/tabernacle. The temple of his body (Jesus and Paul). The presence of God comes into the Holy of Holies and fills the temple. This is what John is talking about with the Logos tabernacling in us.

John and Paul are speaking the things that were too hard for the disciples to bear, and pretty much always were for the rest of them, since they couldn't get it, and the reason Paul smacked them down. Peter and James the super apostles couldn't get past their prejudiced heritage. Even though as you say Jesus did not preach the law, and was opposed to it "you have heard it said, but I tell you". They thought that circumcising people was necessary. These are the heavy burdens that Jesus spoke about, and the yoke thats easy instead. Even John didn't get it while Jesus was there. He, the disciple who Jesus loved (was closest to his heart/ clearest teaching IMO), He had to be rebuked for taking part in the attempt to call down fire on a village, like the god they "knew" would have them do. But Jesus said "you don't know what Spirit you are of". That is what Paul is saying when he rebuked them. You think that is what God is like but you're wrong, (you have heard it said) If you want to circumcise then go cut off your genitals! If your eye causes you to stumble pluck it out. You can't put weight in what the natural mind determines God is like, only the Spirit can do that, give life, the resurrection life, that is what the indwelling is, the tabernacling in us, the we can only see it when our mind is unveiled, through the seed penetrating the veil (hymen of the virgin bride) of our mind (Holy of Holies), then we can say, I and the Father are one, and you Akragon have the same love that I had with the Father from the Foundation of the world, that means that there is no difference, we are one body, aka the new man, aka Jesus the son of Man/ Son of God, vine and branches, the new temple, the new jerusalem.

Interchangeable terms, dimensions of meaning. If you don't see it, no biggie.

Blessings to you

The bible and Christianity borrows extensively from other religions that predate it. 'Jesus' could well be said have been a construct of merging many 'deities' including Buddha (add Apollo, Horus, Mithra and more).The bible also borrows from Vedic scriptures as well as Egyptian /Greek / Roman / Jewish / Gnosticism / Paganism / Mystery religions etc.

www.thezensite.com...

Indeed, but for inevitable differences in translations, what Jesus said may have been identical with what he read and heard of Buddha and Veda texts. The languages of Pali (which Buddha spoke) or Sanskrit (found in most Buddhist documents) had to be translated first into Greek or Coptic, then into Jesus' native Hebrew or Aramaic. More translation is involved with the writing and rewriting of texts after Jesus, including the final English translation in the King James version of the Bible. Considering these discrepancies in translation, many of Jesus' statements could have been identical with their Buddhist sources.
The accounts commonly known about both Jesus and Buddha are numerous, as indicated below.

* Born as an incarnate god.
* Born from a virgin mother.
* Birth claimed as a divine event and prophesied as the same.
* Birth attended by singing angels.
* Birth attended by wise men bearing gifts.
* Prodigious childhood.
* As a child astounded teachers with knowledge.
* Fasted in the wilderness for forty days.
* Tempted while alone by the devil.
* Resisted the devil successfully.
* After the devil left, supernatural events occurred.
* Were vegetarians (fish excepted).
* Began ministry at thirty years of age.
* Attract large following mostly from lower classes.
* Attracted disciples who traveled with him.
* Attracted one disciple who was treacherous.
* Changed disciples' names.
* Encouraged celibacy for their disciples.
* Consecrated in a holy river.
* Itinerant ministry instead of at a fixed place.
* Performed miracles such as curing blindness.
* Renounced worldly riches and required the same of their disciples.
* Ministered to outcasts.
* Advocated universal love and peace.
* Taught mostly through use of parables.
* Triumphal entries (in Jerusalem and Rajagripa).
* Gave major sermon from a mound.
* Disregarded by the dominant religious elite (Pharisees and Brahmans).
* Just before death dispatched disciples to preach in other areas.
* Death accompanied by supernatural event.

Both Jesus and Buddha issued moral commandments that prohibited killing, stealing, adultery, false witness, and coveting. Both emphasized the same moral themes: advocate peace, not war; avoid the corruption of wealth; help the poor; abolish slavery and caste systems; abandon self and selfishness; and love your neighbor, even your enemy. Many statements by Jesus resembled those by Buddha, as presented below.

JESUS: "A foolish man, which built his house on sand."
BUDDHA: "Perishable is a city built on sand." (30)
JESUS: "Therefore confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed."
BUDDHA: "Confess before the world the sins you have committed." (31)
JESUS: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the foregiveness of sins."
BUDDHA: "Let all sins that were committed in this world fall on me, that the world may be delivered." (32)
JESUS: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
BUDDHA: "Consider others as yourself." (33)
JESUS: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also."
BUDDHA: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words." (34)
JESUS: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
BUDDHA: "Hatreds do not cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good." (35)
JESUS: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
BUDDHA: "Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." (36)
JESUS: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her."
BUDDHA: "Do not look at the faults of others or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done." (37)
JESUS: "You father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."
BUDDHA: "The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low." (38)
JESUS: "If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
BUDDHA: "The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (39)

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Paul says that Adam is a type of the one to come (Christ). Adam=Atum=Manu=mankind

I believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of all religious hopes. The logos is the archetype that is divided among the nations, the different faces that are put on the divine impulse. He is called the bright morning star. The sun of God. He is compared to wisdom/ thoth.

reply to post by zardust


So was Apollo, Buddha, Krsna etc. It is the standard for theistic religions. There has to be a 'greater than all' entity. Most of the theistic religions are sun worshiping religions as clearly the ancients had an inclination as to the machinations of the solar system.

A bright omnipotent 'deity' (the sun) greater than those that revolve around it (humanity) whilst acknowledging a yet higher force (God / the Universe / Absolute Energy).

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


"From Him, through Him, and to Him are all things" is a very panentheistic view that is almost identical with religions of the east. The one from whom all things emanate. And the veil of flesh/ the mind is quite like the dream state.

IMHO there is only one story when one seeks the divine. " I will send rain on the just and the unjust" "I will pour out my Spirit on all people". All are given the good gifts from the Father above. Though each sees differently, There are archetypes that are built into the fabric of creation, which are a part of us. The differences we see between these figures in different cultures is due to the veil of the mind that the Spirit flows into and through. The seed is there even in the most corrupt images of God. His image was the exact image of the Father (the Hidden one ) the selfless offering of himself to stop the machinations of scapegoating religion. To take every symbol that each nation had made, and show them (when He made an open show of principalities and powers) what they were looking for when they were "seeing through a glass darkly", to give the crystal image. We all create god in our own image, a flawed image, the beast image. On the other hand we have the exact image: The selfless, self sacrificing, peace bringing healer is the highest ideal we can ask for in God IMO. That is the image of God, not the war mongering sun god, but the fertility sun god. Pure love. Not the angry violent god of the pagan/jews, but the God who is light, who is love, in whom there is no darkness or turning. The abba of he the son, the avatar, the buddha, hermes, thoth. The bringer of wisdom, the light of men, the enlightenment of men.

reply to post by zardust


The bible isn't all sweetness and light nor is 'Jesus' of the bible all love and sunshine.

That which you view in 'Jesus' can be viewed in many other religions.

There are many scholarly reports that Christianity was deliberately constructed as a 'one size fits all' religion, a melting pot for bringing the many sects and religions under the control of an organisation.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


There is that possibility, that it was a setup. I obviously don't believe that. For me its based on experience, I've had the light dawn in my heart. I've seen with unveiled eyes.

I'm saying it is the same in all religions. Just as those have misinformation about God, so does Judaism and christianity. In my above posts I addressed this a little bit. Jesus stated that their view of God is very different from what God is. He said that of his disciples, of the torah, of the pharisees, of us. We can never fully grasp the clear picture with our veiled minds. Is that not the mantra of the east? Guatma arose in response to the religious misunderstanding of God (sacrifice to devas). Zoroaster arose in response to the religious misunderstanding of God (sacrifice to devas). Jesus arose in response to the religious misunderstanding of God (sacrificial religion to the false god). The devas are the misunderstandings of god. The shadows that cloud the Light from the source of all.

He came to set us free from bondage to the devas of our mind.

When Stephen was about to be stoned he recited a passage from Amos saying " it wasn't Me you were offering sacrifices to in the wilderness for 40 years, no it was your images of your star gods, your moloch(jupiter), and kiyyun(saturn)" They were wrong about the nature of God, he was not the violent child killer that moloch is. They were worshipping the wrong image. They were worshipping the image they had created (the ark of the covenant). They were worshipping the literal image, not what it pointed to, or what it "covered", which is the Spirit, or the Shekinah as seen in the Tabernacle.

I disagree with you that Jesus isn't all nice. Those things which are not pure love, light, are not of God, they are devas, false images.

Peace

reply to post by zardust


I said '''Jesus' of the bible'' as I do not believe all the quotes in the bible attributed to 'Jesus' as being from a historical being as described in the bible.

The imagery stirred by Buddhism is more in tune with infinite energy IMO and resonates far better the concept of spirituality and connection to the divine energy.

Here are some examples of 'Jesus' being other than love and light.

skepticsannotatedbible.com...

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by zardust

 

I said '''Jesus' of the bible'' as I do not believe all the quotes in the bible attributed to 'Jesus' as being from a historical being as described in the bible.

The imagery stirred by Buddhism is more in tune with infinite energy IMO and resonates far better the concept of spirituality and connection to the divine energy.

Here are some examples of 'Jesus' being other than love and light.

skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Pretty much every one of those issues is due to a reading by the letter or mistranslation (in the case of eternal damnation and hell)There are many idioms that are not translated well like separating families. That is a hyperbolic contrast which was very common in that time. Same with cut off your hands.

Those without eyes to see will misunderstand just like those who think Jesus meant for us to be literally eating his flesh.

reply to post by zardust


There is also the possibility that a historical 'Jesus' might not have existed or said any of the things supposedly 'quoted' in the bible. For all you or anyone else knows it could have been a work of fiction by 'apostles' etc or some writer somewhere working to an agenda.

There are hundreds of thousands of words in the bible and none of them can be authentically verified as being that which they are pertaining to be. Fact.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


I agreed with you that the historical Jesus could be made up. Just like the historical buddha, or zoroaster, or Osiris. We have no eyewitnesses. For all we know history never happened and it is being made up in my head right now, and you are just a figment of my imagination, or a part of the matrix. For all we know we are being fed history through a program implanted into our psyche from some kind of higher dimensional being. You ever think of that? History is all myth. George Washington cutting down the cherry tree. That USA is a christian nation, while it oppressed the native population and continues to subjugate its population, in opposition to what Jesus actually taught about neighbors and people. These are myths also. There are no videos of George Washington crossing the Delaware. No eye witnesses.

I can't prove to you that the historical Jesus exists and I actually don't care. That is not my goal either. That is focusing on the flesh. Paul said "now we know no man after the flesh". The spirit is what I'm concerned with.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

For all you or anyone else knows it could have been a work of fiction by 'apostles' etc or some writer somewhere working to an agenda.

For the lay person or casual observer, that might seem to be the case. However, historians, linguists and textual critics use their fields' methodology to analyze texts like the Bible to validate its authenticity (as a document, not its contents.) And, pretty much universally, the conclusion is that the text was written by many different writers, over many decades, and textual clues indicate that the text is authentic. That is why almost every scholar agrees that someone named Jesus, who was the founder of a religious order in the First Century, existed. Beyond that, many arguments exist as to who he actually was and what he said, but the consensus is that the New Testament is the best source of information on him.

As for the church just "making it all up", there are a number of arguments against that -- my favourite is the "Argument from embarrassment". As an example, the church believed that Peter was their Apostolic founder, but when you read the Bible, he's portrayed as kind of an idiot, betrayed Jesus and is hardly the best role model out there. That seems very odd, if the book was a fictional account from the church, but is far more reasonable if the books were written by people who were witnesses to the life of Christ, and presented the events as they happened, rather than as they would have preferred them to have happened.

ETA: One of the best historical scholars of late on the reliability of the Gospels is Richard Bauckham. Here is a lecture that he gave which you might find of some interest: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts. As you read it, bear in mind that he is an historian, not a preacher, so he's using historical methodology to make his points, not "Well, the Bible said this so it must be true."

reply to post by adjensen


There are so many discrepancies in the bible that it's authenticity is always in question.

My own belief is that there was a historical Nazarene, though wasn't called 'Jesus' as that name wasn't in use then, he was an initiate of the Graeco / Roman mysteries which has aspects of ancient Egyptian cults and other influences.

He had a following and grew a reputation, perhaps he 'shone' as a 'magician' as that is how he would have been seen then, and he became well known.

At various points around the early late BC / early AD certain rulers of the area such as Hadrian and Ptolemy decided on gaining more power over the local populations and that meant making them believe in their particular brand of 'magic' as being superior to others. They even made state worship and forced populations into such beliefs, there wasn't much they wouldn't try as attempts at asserting their control and superiority, including borrowing from other religions and cults that were worshiped at the time, creating their new all in one, one size fits all religious icon. Hence netting a lot of peripheral cult followers etc under their wing as well as the more widely known.

The term 'Christ' was used by the mystery religions before the supposed birth of 'Jesus'.

When those rulers decided on tightening their control of the populations they further instigated their religious agenda with writings and when the Christianity became the official religion of the day, more detailed accounts 'emerged' however this was some time after the supposed 'original event'.

So whilst a historical 'Jesus' might have existed there isn't really complete proof, at least not as the bible describes nor of the authenticity of the text being either attributed to those it claims nor for the authenticity of their accounts.

So there are very old manuscripts, scroll and bibles, written early on, but still this is evidence of historic existence of those rather than validation of text. There are also many translations and re writings and Vatican councils that have taken parts from and added to various bibles that further detracts from authenticity of text.

There is no proof that the first Christian bible wasn't written by say a Roman scribe or by false accounts of 'apostles'.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


And in the same way we don't know if Plato existed, or Pythagoreas. We only have copies of copies. How do we know some disciple of a random greek philosopher didn't just make Plato up, kind of like how some people feel that Plato made up Aristotle. I'm not testifying to the veracity of that either way.

I just find it funny when everyone throws out Jesus as historical but will then in the same breathe quote buddha which we have similar evidence of.

Again I'm not trying to prove the historical Jesus. It doesn't matter to me. The truth in the story is brought to life by the Spirit for me. That is my point of entering this dialogue in the first place.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

There is no proof that the first Christian bible wasn't written by say a Roman scribe or by false accounts of 'apostles'.

Again, for most people who aren't academics, that might seem like a reasonable statement, but when a scholarly analysis is made, the text absolutely cannot have been written by "a Roman scribe", because the details, even the casual ones, are evidence that whoever wrote the texts (and, again, textual critics make it abundantly clear that there are multiple authors, sometimes even within the same book,) was familiar with the religion, language, culture and geography of First Century Judea and Jerusalem.

You are correct on the name, though -- Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua, after the Old Testament figure we know as Joshua. All the rest of your beliefs are not supported by any credible evidence, though you are welcome to believe them.

reply to post by adjensen


My belief is because of multi faith academic research, including the Vatican Libraries and documents since hidden from public view.

There is a lot of research from a lot of sources, and whilst I didn't say 'all of the bible' being written by Roman scribes, there are parts of it that could be. Remember I didn't say an opinion on who wrote it just that it could have been written by others, including Roman scribes, who were around at the time of 'Jesus'.

The fallacy of 'Jesus' being a Jew living in a mainly Jewish area is a fallacy, there were so many influences, cultures and religions.

Basically if you read academic research from Christian scholars you will see a version that varies from that say of a Jewish academic scholar and again from other sources.

My own research is from various sources and the main point is that Christianity is a mish mash of other religions and religious deities, this is fact.

I do not claim to know who actually wrote it but I do question the Christian hypothesis of it being a direct translation of 'Jesus', 'apostles' or a direct word of 'God'.

The comment I made that it could have been 'written by anyone including Roman scribes' was not a literal hypothesis but to show that it is possible that it is not as Christianity wants people to believe.

Various Historical aspects

The Greek general Ptolemy styled himself as an Egyptian pharaoh and took the title "Soter" ("Saviour"). As the astute ruler he understood the political value of an official religion. A single, composite deity, one god, one all-embracing system of belief, might unify the diverse, often antagonistic peoples of his polyglot empire and strengthen their devotion to the god's earthly representative – himself.

The first Greek pharaoh wanted a single, composite god to bring together his diverse subjects. In a 'classic' example of the process of syncretism, the character and characteristics of several earlier gods were rolled into one, the god Serapis.

Of all the Pharaonic–Greek gods Serapis survived the longest, well into the Roman period.

In fusing the character of so many earlier gods into Serapis the practice of virtual monotheism was established in Alexandria over several hundred years.

The new god embodied aspects of many earlier deities, including the Egyptian Osiris and Apis and the Greek Dionysus and Hades, the Greek god of the Underworld. The Ptolemies intended that the new god should have universal appeal in an increasingly cosmopolitan country. In consequence, Serapis had more than 200 localised names, including (according to correspondence of Emperor Hadrian) Christ!

In the 3rd century BC, the worship of Serapis became a State sponsored cult throughout Egypt. With the Roman conquest, the cult spread throughout the Empire.

Such a god, to enjoy universal acceptance and devotion, would necessarily possess all the powers and aspects of earlier ones. To create that grand synthesis – in a process that anticipated the actions of the Roman Emperor Constantine several centuries later – Ptolemy put all the resources of the state behind the promotion and sponsorship of an official cult. Major temples of the god were built at Alexandria and Memphis. The Serapeum in Alexandria itself blended Egyptian gigantism with the grace and beauty of Hellenic style. The Serapeum grew into a vast complex, one of the grandest monuments of pagan civilization.

In their first two centuries, the followers of Christ had no particular images of their god. Emerging as they did from Judaism they disdained "idol worship." They were even accused of being atheists. But once the break with Judaism was complete the Christ worshippers rapidly made up the deficiency by adapting for Christian use pagan images, rituals, sacred sites, and symbols.

This process occurred most energetically in Egypt, a land awash with religious iconography. From the 3rd century AD onwards, Egyptian Christian – 'Coptic' – art displayed a syncretistic and fused tradition – Roman, Greek and Pharaonic – with a Christian veneer. Such art faithfully reflected a deeper truth: the regurgitation of ancient religious belief in the new guise of 'Christianity.