ever wonder why in sunday school/church...anywhere! they do not mention where jesus went for most of his life...??? I.E to study buddism? and ever wonder why know one ever informs people that jesus never said he was the son of god? im not a religious person so correct me if i have some stuff incorrect, but it just baffles me why people don't want to hear the truth, yet some washed up bubblegum answer to hear what they want to hear...
any thoughts??
Full Version: Jesus...the buddist!
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
My personal beliefs are boarder line atheist so I really don't care if he was into Voodoo, but that does not sound like a bad theory to me. The bible does not mention him traveling very much into the east does it? and I don't know how prevalent buddism was in that area at the time.
sorry i forgot to mention some stuff...there was a time where jesus was gone... they called it the lost years...my girlfriend went to a religious school a while back and they were not alowed to talk about it...it is belived he went to india...
check this link out, i found it recently
http://realmagick.com/articles/61/2261.html
check this link out, i found it recently
http://realmagick.com/articles/61/2261.html
Jesus could have studied Sikhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Buddhism...
I'd say, if anything, he would have studied Hinduism because its older than any other religion and more widely spread and practiced than Buddhism (At the time). Of course, this is to say if there was a "Jesus."
I'd say, if anything, he would have studied Hinduism because its older than any other religion and more widely spread and practiced than Buddhism (At the time). Of course, this is to say if there was a "Jesus."
Jesus is just an icon, there no record he was accually born, never wrote anything (pretty much like socrates)...so maybe writers of the bible simply created a character, with the buddist influence with actually using buddha. The people wouldn't follow a outsider as a massahya.
they needed someone to give them hope for freedom toward the roman occupation.
...well that's how i see it.
they needed someone to give them hope for freedom toward the roman occupation.
...well that's how i see it.
QUOTE(GCOW @ Oct 8 2004, 09:05 AM)
and ever wonder why know one ever informs people that jesus never said he was the son of god? im not a religious person so correct me if i have some stuff incorrect,
[right][snapback]295760[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]295760[/snapback][/right]
well,i do believe Jesus was existed...but
i believe He is NOT son of God...that's it..
QUOTE(kikuchiyo @ Oct 7 2004, 10:10 PM)
Jesus is just an icon, there no record he was accually born, never wrote anything (pretty much like socrates)...so maybe writers of the bible simply created a character, with the buddist influence with actually using buddha. The people wouldn't follow a outsider as a massahya.
they needed someone to give them hope for freedom toward the roman occupation.
...well that's how i see it.
[right][snapback]295991[/snapback][/right]
they needed someone to give them hope for freedom toward the roman occupation.
...well that's how i see it.
[right][snapback]295991[/snapback][/right]
The only problem with that is that 3 of the Gospels were written within a few years of each other, in different regions. They are the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
John was written much later.
If you want to believe that Jesus was not the messiah or the son of God, well, that's your opinion. But to believe that Jesus did not exist is ignorant of the fact that in Jerusalem and outlying area of Israel, thousands of Jews switched to Christianity based on first hand experiences with Jesus. That in and of itself proves that there was at least an individual named Jesus.
let there's no writen proof of a water-waking-bread&wine-multipacating-miracle-making Jesus, there was probably a number of Jesus.
but where there real incounter of Jesus or were there only "word of mouth" accounts?
Because to have a thousands first hand encounters with one person in a that era is almost impossible unless you were rich.
They were oppresed by romans and felt disregarded by the jewish temple, so there only option was to have a messiah to call there own, that messiah was Jesus maybe he was just a wise man then later on maybe they made him the son of god.
of course it's just a theory.
but where there real incounter of Jesus or were there only "word of mouth" accounts?
Because to have a thousands first hand encounters with one person in a that era is almost impossible unless you were rich.
They were oppresed by romans and felt disregarded by the jewish temple, so there only option was to have a messiah to call there own, that messiah was Jesus maybe he was just a wise man then later on maybe they made him the son of god.
of course it's just a theory.
i beleive there was a person named jesus, yet i dont think he was the son of god. personally i see religion as somethign to keep people in check...becuase if your not good person, youll go to hell!!! hehe i dont belive that junk..i mean who makes whats good and bad? humans....ughh..but anyway there was even encounters of a mysterious man who showed up to a gorup of buddhists..that man was jesus...that what records show
QUOTE
The only problem with that is that 3 of the Gospels were written within a few years of each other, in different regions. They are the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Then the problem with Matthew, Mark, and Luke is that they were written quite a time after the supposed occurrences and were not written by witnesses. Mark was the original gospel, supposedly written by the scribe/translator of Peter. was written by a person who was unfamiliar with Jewish mores and Palestinian geography and probably a Roman Jew. A man who never met Jesus and was only recording the memories of a biased old man. Mark was not written until around 70-80 CE. Matthew uses over 90% of Mark's material, most of it word for word, hardly the sign of an eye witness, the remaining 10% comes from the postulated "Q" source. Matthew was written within a decade or so of Mark. Luke also used Mark (altho not to the extent of Matthew) and the "Q" source, does not seem to know of Matthew or Matthew's writings, and was written around the same time as Matthew. As Independent1 said, John was written much latter, around 120-125 CE, and was definately not written by an eyewitness. Such an eye witness would have had to be over 110 years old.
QUOTE
But to believe that Jesus did not exist is ignorant of the fact that in Jerusalem and outlying area of Israel, thousands of Jews switched to Christianity based on first hand experiences with Jesus
This must be your preacher talking.....Roman and Jewish functionaries and historians mention only very very small groups of Xians until the middle of the 3rd century CE. While Pauline Xianity's growth was fairly fast, the followers of the Jerusalem church, which would have been made up of Jews with "first hand experiences with Jesus" was a very small group that did not outlive the destruction of the Temple and the City by the Romans in 70 CE! This left only the Paulines, whose teaching were based on Paul and not Jesus. This was the ancestor of modern Xianity and it is based on the teachings of a man who never met or saw Jesus in life, had only a vision that occurred during an epiliptic seizure to base his very Mithrian teachings on, and was possibly not a native Jew but possibly a convert (that last is not my belief, but a current theory of some minimalist historians).
Wow that was concise but very informative.
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
It is pretty doubtful that Jesus would have studied Hinduism just because it was more common at the time. For one Hinduism is a polytheistic while Christianity is obviously monotheistic. Also Hinduism is primarily an ethnic religion like Judaism and not Universalizing like Christianity. That is to say that Hinduism is almost entirely practiced by an ethnic group.
One little pet peeve of mine: Buddhism not buddism, and Buddhist not buddist
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
It is pretty doubtful that Jesus would have studied Hinduism just because it was more common at the time. For one Hinduism is a polytheistic while Christianity is obviously monotheistic. Also Hinduism is primarily an ethnic religion like Judaism and not Universalizing like Christianity. That is to say that Hinduism is almost entirely practiced by an ethnic group.
One little pet peeve of mine: Buddhism not buddism, and Buddhist not buddist
QUOTE(JTBob @ Oct 8 2004, 12:14 PM)
....Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.....
All religions have base similarities. When you remove the deity, actual rituals, and name of leaders, you have a set of basic rules to live by that best serve society.
My personal belief is that Jesus did travel to the far east during those lost years.
If you want to read a TERRIFIC, VERY FUNNY (Fictional), un-religious version of where he might have spent his lost years, try "Lamb - The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's childhood Pal" by Christopher Moore.
INCREDIBLY funny, irreverent look at what Jesus may have been doing during those years. WARNING: Not for the overly religious, or those with no sense of humor!!
If you want to read a TERRIFIC, VERY FUNNY (Fictional), un-religious version of where he might have spent his lost years, try "Lamb - The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's childhood Pal" by Christopher Moore.
INCREDIBLY funny, irreverent look at what Jesus may have been doing during those years. WARNING: Not for the overly religious, or those with no sense of humor!!
QUOTE(beowulf @ Oct 8 2004, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE
The only problem with that is that 3 of the Gospels were written within a few years of each other, in different regions. They are the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Then the problem with Matthew, Mark, and Luke is that they were written quite a time after the supposed occurrences and were not written by witnesses. Mark was the original gospel, supposedly written by the scribe/translator of Peter. was written by a person who was unfamiliar with Jewish mores and Palestinian geography and probably a Roman Jew. A man who never met Jesus and was only recording the memories of a biased old man. Mark was not written until around 70-80 CE. Matthew uses over 90% of Mark's material, most of it word for word, hardly the sign of an eye witness, the remaining 10% comes from the postulated "Q" source. Matthew was written within a decade or so of Mark. Luke also used Mark (altho not to the extent of Matthew) and the "Q" source, does not seem to know of Matthew or Matthew's writings, and was written around the same time as Matthew. As Independent1 said, John was written much latter, around 120-125 CE, and was definately not written by an eyewitness. Such an eye witness would have had to be over 110 years old.
[right][snapback]296486[/snapback][/right]
mr.beowulf
Can i know...
You mean the book of Bible that we have today have been change from the original one..?? and please tell me what is "Q" source...??
and may i know,
if the Bible was edited by Mathew - from the original one,is that mean the Christian that we have now is different from what originaly was teached by Jesus?
Isn't it interesting that Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi even the Dali Lama all have semi communists ideas? I mean they were all asked how to deal with the poor and all the responses were the same "give them your money". Yeah so that's just an observation of people who go against the system they live in.
ok, back to my question...why dont they tell people? in church in school, why dont they tell people he went somewhere for a few years? why do they hide the fact??
The Bible was written in " Cannons ". These were put into book form my a Roman leader "Constantine". Romans kept killing christians and but to no avail ...for they would not forsake their beliefs. So the Romans had the frame of mind " if you can't beat them....join them". Thus, the Roman Catholic Church was formed.
The Romans did not write the Bible they only printed it. Thus they chose what to keep in the Bible and what to omit. This is why one sees a time lapse in the life of Jesus.
However, the romans did not have the only copies of the Bible for there were cannons that were purposely placed were the world would find them. One such set is know as the
Dead Sea Scrolls and is now being studied. This tells of the "lost years of Jesus" and of his marriage to a woman and of his daughter. (The Roman church kept this a secret from the public) The Holy Grail is in-fact the bloodline of Jesus that exists to this day.
The Romans did not write the Bible they only printed it. Thus they chose what to keep in the Bible and what to omit. This is why one sees a time lapse in the life of Jesus.
However, the romans did not have the only copies of the Bible for there were cannons that were purposely placed were the world would find them. One such set is know as the
Dead Sea Scrolls and is now being studied. This tells of the "lost years of Jesus" and of his marriage to a woman and of his daughter. (The Roman church kept this a secret from the public) The Holy Grail is in-fact the bloodline of Jesus that exists to this day.
QUOTE
Can i know...
You mean the book of Bible that we have today have been change from the original one..?? and please tell me what is "Q" source...??
You mean the book of Bible that we have today have been change from the original one..?? and please tell me what is "Q" source...??
First, there is no original bible – what now exists is the result of several hundred years of editing and choosing by the Church. What is in the bible was not chosen by a Xian, but by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, a pagan, who supposedly converted on his deathbed. Since the Church fathers couldn’t or wouldn’t choose the canons, Constantine did. As for the Q Source, here is a quick explanation of it:
Q is the name used by scholars to describe a lost source on Jesus' teachings. (The letter is randomly chosen.) It can be reconstructed from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are based on two earlier sources: the gospel of Mark and Q. Stated differently, Q is by definition the material that Luke and Matthew have in common that is not dependent on Mark. Q contained many sayings attributed to Jesus (such as the Lord's prayer) and two short stories (Jesus' temptation in the desert; the faith of the centurion). Its form may have been similar to the Gospel of Thomas, which contains some hundred simple sayings. The genre may be related to the Epistle of Enoch.
It is not entirely clear whether Q's sayings are really Jesus'. As a rule of the thumb, we may assume that an early date of composition indicates a high reliability and vice versa. An indication that this document was composed comparatively late, is the fact that it seems to mention a murder in the Temple (Luke 11.51 = Matthew 23.36). This may be the murder described by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Jewish War 4.335-343), suggesting that the final composition of Q must be dated after this incident, which took place in the winter of 67/68.
QUOTE
and may i know,
if the Bible was edited by Mathew - from the original one,is that mean the Christian that we have now is different from what originaly was teached by Jesus?
if the Bible was edited by Mathew - from the original one,is that mean the Christian that we have now is different from what originaly was teached by Jesus?
Well, ole Matt didn’t edit the NT, he just copied from Mark and from the Q source. Contrary to what Xians want you to believe, there is substantial evidence (the type that would hold up in court) that Xians changed and edited the NT quite substantially over a number of centuries, so yes what Christians now believe could quite possibly be nothing like what he originally taught. Not having anything written by Jesus (or any Disciples that he might have had – we only have the NT’s word that he had disciples and what their names were) or any of the original copies of the various books, we can only guess what he originally taught.
QUOTE(Misery @ Oct 12 2004, 01:20 AM)
Isn't it interesting that Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi even the Dali Lama all have semi communists ideas? I mean they were all asked how to deal with the poor and all the responses were the same "give them your money". Yeah so that's just an observation of people who go against the system they live in.[right][snapback]301792[/snapback][/right]
Well that's a pretty simple view of things. Also Gandhi was a poltical figure, not a religous one and the Dali Lama is a Buddhist so it makes sense that his teachings would also be that of Buddha's. Yes most people who consider themselves religous are of course hypocrites. It's definitly a more socialist ideal but communism is a lot of things to a lot of people. Religion is actually banned in certain Marxist governments.
Hmm this went off topic
QUOTE(GCOW @ Oct 11 2004, 08:45 PM)
ok, back to my question...why dont they tell people? in church in school, why dont they tell people he went somewhere for a few years? why do they hide the fact??
[right][snapback]301850[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]301850[/snapback][/right]
They don't hide the fact, there just isn't information about Jesus going off to study other religions. They teach what is relevant... If you are in Christian school or go to a Christian church, they have no reason to speak of other religions. When you go to learn about Christianity its their job to teach Christianity, not to start on topic about Buddhism and get people to convert away from Christianity...
...
wait, jesus never said once that he was the Son of God?
you guys seemed to have missed the point a little. from 14-29 yrs old, in the bible there is no mention of jesus. the reason why historians who dare the question the ignorance have landed on buddism is because of the 3 wise mes. the only people at that time who knew anything about stars were buddists. they would have gone to see jesus as he was apparently born under a bright star, this is how they find the next dalai lama! there were the only people around who could have, and had the inclination to do this. also, due to the trade routes of the time, moving from israel to tibet or northern india was actually quite easy. also, the gifts, gold, frankensence and mehr, these were not available in israel, but they were in southern asia. its funny how some people put 2 and 2 together and get 5, it all seems pretty obvious to me, just common sence really. 
before i forget, the ressurection story. the only people this benefitted were the decendants of the pope, was it peter? sorry, i cant remember. but the 2 accounts were both different, one saying he sat and talked with a man saying he was jesus, but who looked completely different, and the other saying something different. the fact is, when mary magdolin went to see jesus in the tomb, she took healing herbs with her, not embrming herbs, many think he wasnt dead, so was not ressurected, but just escaped with help. many also theorise that mary magdolin was his girlfriend and they may have had a family together and moved to france. there are historians who are convinced of this.
nevertheless, there are others who think he went back to india. there is a grave in kashmir where a jew and a muslim are buried. the jew was buried years before as he is lower, this jew had his feet cast (printed in metal) before he died, and they show crucifiction marks, this could be the site jesus was buried. jesus always said his task was to reunite the lost tribes, these jewish tribes moved round into asia, and if elders in these kashmiri tribes are asked, they tell stories of their ancestors being the lost tribes, they also tell stories of a man, a jew who came there to help them 2000 yrs ago. amazing isnt it!
nevertheless, there are others who think he went back to india. there is a grave in kashmir where a jew and a muslim are buried. the jew was buried years before as he is lower, this jew had his feet cast (printed in metal) before he died, and they show crucifiction marks, this could be the site jesus was buried. jesus always said his task was to reunite the lost tribes, these jewish tribes moved round into asia, and if elders in these kashmiri tribes are asked, they tell stories of their ancestors being the lost tribes, they also tell stories of a man, a jew who came there to help them 2000 yrs ago. amazing isnt it!
QUOTE(The_Joker @ Dec 4 2004, 03:01 AM)
the only people at that time who knew anything about stars were buddists.
[right][snapback]384321[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]384321[/snapback][/right]
That is very far from truth.. Even if we assume that the older civilizations (Babylonians, Egyptians to name 2) that were very advanced in astronomy, were in decline around 1.AD, still the Greeks were very much up and running
QUOTE(The_Joker @ Dec 3 2004, 05:01 PM)
you guys seemed to have missed the point a little. from 14-29 yrs old, in the bible there is no mention of jesus. the reason why historians who dare the question the ignorance have landed on buddism is because of the 3 wise mes. the only people at that time who knew anything about stars were buddists. they would have gone to see jesus as he was apparently born under a bright star, this is how they find the next dalai lama! there were the only people around who could have, and had the inclination to do this. also, due to the trade routes of the time, moving from israel to tibet or northern india was actually quite easy. also, the gifts, gold, frankensence and mehr, these were not available in israel, but they were in southern asia. its funny how some people put 2 and 2 together and get 5, it all seems pretty obvious to me, just common sence really.
[right][snapback]384321[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]384321[/snapback][/right]
Jesus's so called human father was a carpenter...what if he was a carpenter from 14-29?
QUOTE
Jesus could have studied Sikhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Buddhism...
Well, it would be difficult for him to study Sikhism, because Sikhism is a sect of Islam, which didn't exist back then
...And as for Judaism, being that he was a Jew, and probably a Rabbi as well, it is more than likely that he studied it more than any other religion
QUOTE(GCOW @ Oct 7 2004, 04:05 PM)
ever wonder why in sunday school/church...anywhere! they do not mention where jesus went for most of his life...??? I.E to study buddism? and ever wonder why know one ever informs people that jesus never said he was the son of god? im not a religious person so correct me if i have some stuff incorrect, but it just baffles me why people don't want to hear the truth, yet some washed up bubblegum answer to hear what they want to hear...
any thoughts??
[right][snapback]295760[/snapback][/right]
any thoughts??
[right][snapback]295760[/snapback][/right]
heh heh, so, he went to study Buhdism eh? What about the complete acont for his entire whereabouts in the bible? What about jesus constantly saying he was the son of God in the bible?
QUOTE(beowulf @ Oct 12 2004, 10:10 AM)
QUOTE
Can i know...
You mean the book of Bible that we have today have been change from the original one..?? and please tell me what is "Q" source...??
You mean the book of Bible that we have today have been change from the original one..?? and please tell me what is "Q" source...??
First, there is no original bible – what now exists is the result of several hundred years of editing and choosing by the Church. What is in the bible was not chosen by a Xian, but by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, a pagan, who supposedly converted on his deathbed. Since the Church fathers couldn’t or wouldn’t choose the canons, Constantine did. As for the Q Source, here is a quick explanation of it:
Q is the name used by scholars to describe a lost source on Jesus' teachings. (The letter is randomly chosen.) It can be reconstructed from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are based on two earlier sources: the gospel of Mark and Q. Stated differently, Q is by definition the material that Luke and Matthew have in common that is not dependent on Mark. Q contained many sayings attributed to Jesus (such as the Lord's prayer) and two short stories (Jesus' temptation in the desert; the faith of the centurion). Its form may have been similar to the Gospel of Thomas, which contains some hundred simple sayings. The genre may be related to the Epistle of Enoch.
It is not entirely clear whether Q's sayings are really Jesus'. As a rule of the thumb, we may assume that an early date of composition indicates a high reliability and vice versa. An indication that this document was composed comparatively late, is the fact that it seems to mention a murder in the Temple (Luke 11.51 = Matthew 23.36). This may be the murder described by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Jewish War 4.335-343), suggesting that the final composition of Q must be dated after this incident, which took place in the winter of 67/68.
QUOTE
and may i know,
if the Bible was edited by Mathew - from the original one,is that mean the Christian that we have now is different from what originaly was teached by Jesus?
if the Bible was edited by Mathew - from the original one,is that mean the Christian that we have now is different from what originaly was teached by Jesus?
Well, ole Matt didn’t edit the NT, he just copied from Mark and from the Q source. Contrary to what Xians want you to believe, there is substantial evidence (the type that would hold up in court) that Xians changed and edited the NT quite substantially over a number of centuries, so yes what Christians now believe could quite possibly be nothing like what he originally taught. Not having anything written by Jesus (or any Disciples that he might have had – we only have the NT’s word that he had disciples and what their names were) or any of the original copies of the various books, we can only guess what he originally taught.
[right][snapback]302946[/snapback][/right]
Good points. That's why we follow and seek God so he reveals to us any lies that man has put into his word. It seems to work quite well actually. Jesus must really have been the son of God.
QUOTE(JTBob @ Oct 8 2004, 08:14 AM)
Wow that was concise but very informative.
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
It is pretty doubtful that Jesus would have studied Hinduism just because it was more common at the time. For one Hinduism is a polytheistic while Christianity is obviously monotheistic. Also Hinduism is primarily an ethnic religion like Judaism and not Universalizing like Christianity. That is to say that Hinduism is almost entirely practiced by an ethnic group.
One little pet peeve of mine: Buddhism not buddism, and Buddhist not buddist
[right][snapback]296781[/snapback][/right]
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
It is pretty doubtful that Jesus would have studied Hinduism just because it was more common at the time. For one Hinduism is a polytheistic while Christianity is obviously monotheistic. Also Hinduism is primarily an ethnic religion like Judaism and not Universalizing like Christianity. That is to say that Hinduism is almost entirely practiced by an ethnic group.
One little pet peeve of mine: Buddhism not buddism, and Buddhist not buddist
[right][snapback]296781[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(JTBob @ Oct 8 2004, 08:14 AM)
Wow that was concise but very informative.
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
It is pretty doubtful that Jesus would have studied Hinduism just because it was more common at the time. For one Hinduism is a polytheistic while Christianity is obviously monotheistic. Also Hinduism is primarily an ethnic religion like Judaism and not Universalizing like Christianity. That is to say that Hinduism is almost entirely practiced by an ethnic group.
One little pet peeve of mine: Buddhism not buddism, and Buddhist not buddist
[right][snapback]296781[/snapback][/right]
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
It is pretty doubtful that Jesus would have studied Hinduism just because it was more common at the time. For one Hinduism is a polytheistic while Christianity is obviously monotheistic. Also Hinduism is primarily an ethnic religion like Judaism and not Universalizing like Christianity. That is to say that Hinduism is almost entirely practiced by an ethnic group.
One little pet peeve of mine: Buddhism not buddism, and Buddhist not buddist
[right][snapback]296781[/snapback][/right]
How can you say that Christianity is monotheistic when Muslim, Judaism and Christianity all came from the same father of Abraham? Jesus never said he was God, he simply stated that he was who ever you thought he was with never any kind of admission. The "Jesus is God" thing has only recently over the past 50 or so years come out of the current day churches along with the rapture crap. As far as Jesus' teachings, I myself believe that he was raised with teachings he learned given to him by his mother and father, which would be quite possible since that is a message they wanted portrayed of a mother and the father raising their children in the word of God, be it the Torah in Jesus' time. Besides that, how could one tell what other religions Jesus could have dwelled in since they are all parallel to one another in respect to good and evil?
I don't think it matters if Jesus was a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Hari Krishna. If we all just treated each other better, then the world would be a dandy place. I belive in God, but I don't consider myself part of any organized religion. We shouldnt let the clutter of modern religion get in the way of the message.
I have heard hearsay about Jesus studying Buddhism in the period not covered in the Bible (the Apocrypha and such). I'm not sure there's a bunch of solid evidence for it. Mostly I think it's just circumstantial evidence and the base similarities between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I'd have to do more research before I could say I was knowledgeable on the subject.
Zen Buddhists do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the son of God.
How can you say that Christianity is monotheistic when Muslim, Judaism and Christianity all came from the same father of Abraham?
Christianity didn't come until the birst of Christ. Judaism, which was old testament christianity was formed when God made the covenant with Isaac. Muslims believe that God infact made the covenat with Ishmael. This is not true, because the bible recorded the covenant of God and Isaac 1000 years before Muhammed said it was the other way around. In the bible, it says that the sons of Ishmael will be as a wild ass, fighting constantly with his brethren. This decribes the middle east fully.
Jesus never said he was God, he simply stated that he was who ever you thought he was with never any kind of admission.
Untrue. He clearly states that he is the son of God, the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and that no man is saved unless it is through Him.
The "Jesus is God" thing has only recently over the past 50 or so years come out of the current day churches along with the rapture crap.
While the rapture is not entirely biblical, Jesus has always known to be the Son of God in the True christian faith.
As far as Jesus' teachings, I myself believe that he was raised with teachings he learned given to him by his mother and father
Curious, because in the Bible, when Jesus was roughly 12, he was speaking at the temple in such complexity that the scribes could not often understand him. They would keep asking him question until the could.
which would be quite possible since that is a message they wanted portrayed of a mother and the father raising their children in the word of God,
He already knew the word of God much more deeply at a very young age than either of his parents did, or could.
be it the Torah in Jesus' time. Besides that, how could one tell what other religions Jesus could have dwelled in since they are all parallel to one another in respect to good and evil?
Immitation is just immitation. Other religions were created by lucifer in immitation of the true faith in God.
just try and read the bible as truth. does it really matter if he studied other thigs, its good to study other things and especially if he is the son of God to you, then a personal relationship with him is all you need, all that other stuff is materilaistic confusion and no relevance.
QUOTE
Christianity didn't come until the birst of Christ. Judaism, which was old testament christianity was formed when God made the covenant with Isaac. Muslims believe that God infact made the covenat with Ishmael. This is not true, because the bible recorded the covenant of God and Isaac 1000 years before Muhammed said it was the other way around. In the bible, it says that the sons of Ishmael will be as a wild ass, fighting constantly with his brethren. This decribes the middle east fully.
First of all, Judaism is not OT Christianity.
Christianity was in the beginning a Jewish sect (saying that Judaism was a form of Christianity is anachronistic), but later was swisted by Roman culture to become something else.
Islam originated from Judaism and Christianity.
Judaism is 3,300 years old.
Christianity is 2,000 years old, and Islam is 1,300 years old.
All of these religions have their origins in Judaism.
QUOTE
Untrue. He clearly states that he is the son of God, the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and that no man is saved unless it is through Him.
This misunderstanding comes from bad translation of early Christians from Aramaic to Greek.
The "son of God" was a title used by all Jews to refer to themselves, as is written in the OT.
Jews thought themselves to be adopted by God, chosen to carry the burden of his message, and as such are a children of God.
This is a metaphore used and still used by Jews.
Pagan Greeks which translated it from Aramaic to Greek language, were wrong in the translation and thought that Jesus was actually the physical son of God (because Judaism doesn't allow god and humans to breed, because that will be downgrading for god, being that he can be corrupted).
Jesus never actually said that (and as a Jewish Rabbi he couldn't have said that, because that will be against his own beliefs).
QUOTE
be it the Torah in Jesus' time. Besides that, how could one tell what other religions Jesus could have dwelled in since they are all parallel to one another in respect to good and evil?
Immitation is just immitation. Other religions were created by lucifer in immitation of the true faith in God.
Immitation is just immitation. Other religions were created by lucifer in immitation of the true faith in God.
We can assume that Jesus knew Judaism best, being that he was an observent Jew, was probably a Rabbi too, didn't eat pork, had been circumsized like any other Jewish boy, and probably wore yarmulke too.
Also, believing himself to be a physical son of God, is not in consistance with Jewish believe, and thus Jesus probably never said that or meant that.
This is hardly a new theory. There's even a theory that Jesus is buried in India (I think it is India he is said to be buried in by some folks).
It would be cool if they found Jesus' body in India. We could dig him up, ship him to Vegas and charge mega bucks to get your picture taken with him.
I don't know if anybody saw it but there was a program on Discovery High Definition yesterday about this. They explored the idea that he was indeed buried in India and that for his teens and early 20s he followed trade caravans east and visited what is now India, Nepal, Tibet etc. and was exposed to Buddhism. It was interesting but they didn't find any good solid evidence.
QUOTE
there was a time where jesus was gone (they called it the lost years)......it is belived he went to india...
now, i didnt read anymore of the thread after that post, GCOW, so im completely un-informed about the subject, but wouldnt it seem more logical that, if Jesus did in fact go to India during his lost years, he preached the same things he preached to the Jews of his day to the Indians instead of studying Buddhism or Hinduism? Where did we get the idea that he studied Buddhism or Hinduism in the first place?
You know (not clear if anyone stated this) part of the religion of Buddhism consists of a peaceful life considering the fact that they believed in no war, no hatred, and no violence (also known as ahimsa). Buddhists also believe in Nirvana. My point - Buddhists are very laid back kind of people, hippies in a way. I believe Jesus was an all knowing man and very calm and laid back and understood his life function and role of planet Earth at the time as God's almight son - did Jesus worry? Not at all...He was God's son. Jesus...the Buddhist -
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.