Was Jesus a Buddhist Monk?

by skeeter1 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • MoneurMallard

    Mad Sweeney, once again, this all depends on which gospel verse your reading. Most of the synoptic gospels attempt to center focus on a Messianic figure that came to usher in the Kingdom of God, AT THAT TIME, "this generation shall not pass until...." and so on. The imminent establishment of the Kingdom was the focal point of Mark, Matthew and Luke, in that order chronologically. The secondary teachings were that of understanding the Torah, forgiveness, and of course all the agricultural statements about bearing seed, fruit, etc. The gospel of John of course was dealing more with the types and anti-types that are associated with deeper Jewish thought, "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood" of course, reciting the later Babylonian myths, the dualism, gnosticism, etc.

    Where does the whole Buddha relationship step in? Only for a few insignificant literary points, if any.

    "The Jesus we know" is contingent upon what view one takes of the character in the first place. The Jesus I know, for instance, is one who was to be the son of David, high priest of Melchizedek, son of man, Moshiach of Israel, who was to unite Judah and Israel (never did of course) and who was to establish the Kingdom of God at that time. Instead, he was tried by the Roman government (insurrection being the only credible charge at that time) and hung from a tree and died. The Markan account leaves him dead in a tomb, with no sitings or resurrection. That would be the earliest known gospel account written some 70 years after the alleged event occurred.

    Of course, there really is no "Jesus that we know" because all we have is hearsay evidence to his existence. The point of comparing the literary figure with other literary figures lacks tact, but that is simply my opinion, and I am sure many will dispell it.



  • skeeter1


    You must have been a terrible Bible Study for your conductor. He must have run out of your home screaming! I thank you for driving a JW crazy.

    You say that Jesus did not exist - or at least there is no historical records at the time of his life that corroborates his existance. In looking around the Internet, I see that some people believe this. I am not going to disagree with you, just that I have not done enough research on this item. I was going to say that in the ruins of Pompeii, destoyed in 70ish A.D. there was a Cross and study arranged in a home. But, I see from the Internet that some people believe that Pompeii was really destroying in the 1,000's and Christ was said to have lived then. We are dealing with things that happened thousands of years before computers, typewriters, telegraph, books, pre-dark ages, etc. So, who knows.

    But, back to the thread's topic. What do you think of the bronze of Christ's feet, the Kashmir temple to Christ, and stories from the tribe that a great man from Isreal came to their area . . . . all around the time Christ was supposed to be on the Earth?


  • MoneurMallard

    More stories, basically, these things were all allegedly to have happened after his resurrection, (did we go into the fact that the four gospels all disagree upon the events surrounding his crucifixion and resurrection by the way?) - anyway, India may very well be one of the earliest places that the folklore and legend started to gain a following, that's entirely possible. Either way, once again, building a myth upon a myth is not surprising.

    I know of a statue in New York City, on an island, of a woman, she carries a torch and wears a crown. Lady Liberty is her name I believe.

    I also know of a 40 foot owl in California at the Bohemian Grove, all the U.S. Presidents visit it every now and then.

    I also know of a large building in Brooklyn, dedicated to the Watchtower Society.

    All these things are merely figments of mythological deities and superstitions.

  • MoneurMallard

    Oh, forgot to give that list of historians for someone who had asked...

    Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius
    Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
    Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder
    Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch
    Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy
    Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius
    Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
    Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius
    Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran
    Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus Pausanias

    Of these 20+ historians who lived either during or within 10-20 years after the time period in question, not one of them ever once mentioned a Jesus or a place called "Nazareth".

    Another well composed article I have found recently was written by Hayyim ben Yehoshua and it delves into some of the more personal reasons for rejecting the Jesus story, from a Jewish perspective.


    PS- you may occasionally see me write "Shalom" at the end of my blogs and forum posts, this is merely a "peace" greeting and salutation and in no way reflects any religious creed or view. It is a shame that the Yittish greeting has been stereotyped in such a way over the past century or so, but at one time in any given part of the Jewish neighborhoods of NYC, it was quite customary to use it regardless of one's religious profession.

  • Awen

    I'll add something about belief when it comes to Jesus.

    What we have are accounts attributed to people who weren't eyewitnesses. They wrote in behalf of others as far as we know.

    Many people believed in Zeus, Apollo, Hades etc because there were many stories written about them. So the basis of a belief (not a truth) can be set at the doorstep of a story. Just because many people believed in something does not make it true. Flat Earth, Moon made of green cheese, you get the idea. We have to step outside of belief for a moment, suspend belief if you will and look at the hard evidence. For a long time true believer this has been very difficult for me, however I have been unable to find real evidence based upon belief as belief varies from person to person, but unchangeable truth stays the same.

    Unfortunately with the suspension of belief the evidence for a historical Jesus is quite scarce. We have writings of people who lived after his death, but so far nothing from anyone who lived during his lifetime which is odd considering the dramatic impact his life has had on the world. Some might say it's a conspiracy. Whereas others would say it's no surprise.

    The thing is we can compare Jesus to Buddha or Mithra or Osiris or many others and find commonalities in their teachings and life stories. I think this is purposely done to give their teachings more weight and validity. But is it true?

    No one can answer that question while still holding onto belief. Belief clouds one's judgement.

    Suspend belief and make your observations. The answer becomes startingly clear.

  • sizemik
    The thing is we can compare Jesus to Buddha or Mithra or Osiris or many others and find commonalities in their teachings and life stories.

    There's no denying that . . . much like the overlaps that still survive today between a great many current religions . . . Christianity, Islam and Judaism still have elements of commonality. Flood legends cross many boundaries also. There could have been other ways this possible "Jesus" figure was exposed to teachings common to other religions of the time. Exactly how, is difficult to determine from the lack of evidence, but the likelihood is still reasonably high . . . religions often influence and borrow from each other . . . it just seems to be a constant.

    Of these 20+ historians who lived either during or within 10-20 years after the time period in question, not one of them ever once mentioned a Jesus or a place called "Nazareth".

    We do know from some historical accounts that "Messiah" like figures were not uncommon around the time of Christ. That such a figure as Jesus, was represented in writings relatively soon after his alleged appearance, suggests that they are based on someone who actually existed in some form . . . ie; such writings would be subject to scrutiny and criticism by those same historians, if they were a total fabrication. Especially with the proliferation of the early christian church . . . particularly in Rome. The problem is . . . there is no way of knowing the authenticity of the things attributed to him. How much is fact . . . how much is fiction.

    Also. there is some evidence of the existence of a town resembling the description and location of Nazareth. Some Biblical locations have only recently been subject to archealogical investigation . . . Jericho for example. Very little archealogically, has been carried out with regard to a possible Nazareth . . . so the lack of evidence is as much a reflection of the lack of investigation as much as it's lack of authenticity. We can't render a definitive judgement while the jury's still out. The evidence will still be added to yet as more discoveries are made . . . and hopefully a clearer picture on some matters will emerge.

    I hope that makes sense.

  • Witness 007
    Witness 007

    This cant be true because Jesus wasn't Fat!

  • MoneurMallard

    If anything, Simon Bar Kokhba was a much more well suited Messiah claimant than any of the others, including Jesus the Nazarene.

    Which brings up another point, how many New Testament statements that make their claim of being in the Torah or Prophets, are not actually there?

    "He shall be called a Nazarene" is no where found in the OT texts.

Share this