Was Jesus a Buddhist Monk?

by skeeter1 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  MoneurMallard

  It's doubtful that the character described in the gospel accounts (at least the canonized NT accounts, there are some 47-52 other "gospels" that weren't included at the time of it's canonization) was a buddhist or knew anything of the Buddha. It appears that the synoptic gospels present a Jesus that quoted from the Tanakh on a regular basis, often citing numerous verses from Isaiah. There are very few hints of any buddhist type figure, really, just a few similarities. If anything the Jesus figure more closely resembles the Mithras or Dionysian cults, and possibly a few earlier Egyptian deities. In fact, most astrological type deities all stem from the same ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religions, and there should be similarities as the tales were passed from one generation to the next.

  However, in regards to Jesus being any different from the YHWH figure of the Hebrew canon, I beg to differ. The character is quoted as being quite divisive, (Mat 10:34-37) and quite adomant about supporting the YHWH figure's Torah (Mat 5:17-20).
• 

  MoneurMallard

  Also, regarding the whole India idea, and "ego eimi" is simply Greek language. I don't see how one can equate this with having something to do with India. If anything there was a revolt against Roman occupied Jewish provinces throughout the Medeteranean and Jesus and his followers (if they were literal historical figures and not solar deities) were rebels to the cause.
• 

  possible-san

  MoneurMallard.

  Also, regarding the whole India idea, and "ego eimi" is simply Greek language. I don't see how one can equate this with having something to do with India.

  I feel that if we are obstinate like you, probably, we cannot develop this topic at all.

  First of all, Greek is one of the "Indo-European languages."

  "The oldest representative of the family is the Indian branch, of which the chief known dialect is the Sanskrit, which is of special interest to the student of the Greek New Testament because of its close relation to the Greek, of which it may be described as an elder sister."
  
  (A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament, by Dana and Mantey, p. 2)

  Your explanation is foolish for me.
  You should lend an ear more, before criticizing my opinion.

  possible
• 

  skeeter1

  I am just beginning to study this area and concept. That Jesus was a Buddhist or had Buddhist teachings seems very foreign to me, as does Jesus survived the crucifiction. The reason it is strange is because it is a new idea.

  I watched a PBS documentary on Buddhism, and I could easily see the parallels between Buddha & Jesus life. It lead me to say, "hmmmm."

  As the BBC documentary points out, anyone in the West who said that Jesus was Buddhist or claimed that Jesus survived the cross (didn't ascend to Heaven) was also killed by the Catholic church. This type of blasphemy was the actual start to the Crusades. As the BBC documentary points out, if one believes that Christ didn't die and lived, then all of Christianity falls. It is a very important tenant for Christians to maintain.

  But, as the BBC documentary points out, people in the Far East have known, including Possible San, that there is a strong Jesus/Buddhist connection, Jesus likely did survive the cross, and spent his time in Kashmir living out his final days.

  Much of the Bible is taken from other religions, including Egyptian and Greek gods. I have come to realize the rationale behind the quote, "In the beginning, man created God" from the book "The History of God."

  I don't call anyone person's belief any crazier then the other. They are all beliefs of the unknown. But, I do keep an open mind. Everything my mamma taught me about religion (JW) has turned out to be untrue. We are all on a spiritual journey. I would have called myself crazy years ago for what I believe now. But, now, I don't see myself as crazy. And, I thank BBC for making this film. I think the next 50 years, more will come out to the West.

  Skeeter
• 

  MoneurMallard

  I am a language expert, sir. Greece and India have as much to do with each other as chocolate and ketchup. The term "indo-european" is a blanket to cover nearly the whole world's languages with the exception of a few far eastern worlds. It's also a modern declaration, and nineteen hundred years ago meant nothing. However, I welcome the label of "obstinate" and humbly accept it without further obligation, despite the fact that I am among few of the world's free thinkers, who are open to all kinds of ideas, concepts and thoughts. Moreover, a simple study of the Buddhist system reveals that half those traits listed are not actually Buddha's. Buddha was not "born of a virgin", there is no evidence of that. There is also no mention of him turning water into wine, or choosing 12 disciples, or any of the major traits often asserted by many in my field that suggest they are the same or that one followed the other.

  The majority of the literarary account of Yeshua of Nazareth is that of a Jewish sage that was rebellious towards the religious authorities of his time, who failed to see the higher principles of their own Torah. Most of his time was spent teaching his disciples the spiritual nature of the Torah, circumcising the heart and not worrying about the flesh. At a point in time in the synoptics he was charged with insurrection by the Roman government and executed. The Romans didn't want innocent blood on their hands so they charged that the Jewish high priest Caiaphas put them up to it.

  The gospel of Mark account originally ends with Jesus' death, no resurrection sitings. This is of course the earliest known gospel, and originally it had 666 verses.

  Later gospels and religious texts from universal sources add the other traits commonly known among other "dying and resurrected third day deities".
• 

  skeeter1

  The long BBC documentary does go into that the last verses of the ressurection were added a few centuries after Christ died. This is not in the original text.

  That being said, I think that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism and that He lived in Kashmir, as the BBC documentary and the shorter clip of it I posted said.
• 

  MoneurMallard

  Possible-san,

  I posted this link on another thread already, but you may find it of value in your study. Might I ask what universities and theological schools you have attended?

  http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

  This should clear the matter up regarding any of this debate, since there is credible and historical evidence for the existence of Buddha, but no proof whatsoever for the historical life of a Jesus.
• 

  MoneurMallard

  Skeeter, I think first, one must prove that there was an historical Jesus, before one can say that he was this or that. Until someone unearths physical contemporary historical evidence of his existence, he's just a book character.
• 

  skeeter1

  I see where you are coming from.

  I once believed that Jehovah was THE God, the God of Abraham. Now, I don't think that the same God of Abraham, killer of millions, could be the same mastermind(s) that created all of this.

  When someone says, "I believe in Jesus", it can have different meanings. For some, it is that Jesus is a pinch-off of God, and Jesus is God. For others, it is that Jesus is an archangel, separate from God but from Heaven.

  I did not meet Jesus. I did not meet John F. Kennedy or Marilyn Monroe or Moses. But, I can say that all three of these characters changed the world.

  Before Jesus, people were burried from North to South. After Jesus, new tombs were arranged from East to West. I wish I could find the article on it, but I can't right now. There was so much "hoopla" around Jesus and his life and death, Christianity taking around the globe, that I think a MAN who called himself Jesus lived on this Earth.

  Skeeter
• 

  possible-san

  MoneurMallard.

  I am a language expert, sir.

  Hahaha.
  I see.
  
  I think that the expert who is negative thinker and thickheaded/obstinate is the most ill-natured, IMO
  That is, he is "you."

  However, I welcome the label of "obstinate" and humbly accept it without further obligation, despite the fact that I am among few of the world's free thinkers, who are open to all kinds of ideas, concepts and thoughts.

  I feel that you are not as wise as you might think yourself. LOL

  The word "obstinate" is not a mere label, but probably is the fact.

  possible