Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Big Bad Voodoo

Was Jesus a Buddhist monk?

136 posts in this topic

Hey, I have a question...Is anyone here familiar with the Jewish philosopher, Philo? If he and Jesus lived in the same time period and around the same area, why doesm't any of Philo's writings tell of any account of Jesus' existence? I'm sure if Jesus was performing those miracles and so forth, word would have gotten around to Philo, but it seems like it didn't....

Edited by Mademoiselle de Lioncourt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I have a question...Is anyone here familiar with the Jewish philosopher, Philo? If he and Jesus lived in the same time period and around the same area, why doesm't any of Philo's writings tell of any account of Jesus' existence? I'm sure if Jesus was performing those miracles and so forth, word would have gotten around to Philo, but it seems like it didn't....

Well Philo lived in Egypt, so that would have been about 400 miles. Most through desert. And little of Philo is mentioned outside his own works. Thus, should we judge if Philo is real based on his not being mentioned in the New Testiment of the Christian Bible?

Actually the Jewish leaders of the age were actively trying to prevent news of said miracles from getting around. That is why Jesus traveled all over and everywhere he went, people had not heard of him... at least not at first. The further away one gets from News in the ancient world, the longer it took to travel. Possibly Philo did hear about Jesus, but supposedly Jesus died in the year 35, so that would only leave 15 years before Philo dies in 50AD for him to hear about and comment on Jesus.

Jesus's Philosophy might have appealed to Philo, but he was actually more interested in bring Greek ideas into the existing Hebrew structure. While Jesus was trying to supercede the Hebrew structure and bring in a new understanding that was not based on Greek or Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm convinced. India is the origin of everything - , including Christianity, view from 10:00 minutes onwards.

[media=]

[/media]

Now that was a good laugh. Does comedy somewhat reflect reality in this case? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhist do not have a belief in God our father if anything he saw where they took the secerects of our Father God and put forth in there own crooked view. They are part of that Dragon not God our Father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhist do not have a belief in God our father if anything he saw where they took the secerects of our Father God and put forth in there own crooked view. They are part of that Dragon not God our Father.

I was raised Roman Catholic, but there is a line that should not be crossed. Because Buddhism is different from Christianity, there must be something wrong with Buddhism? Christianity is supposed to have some monopoly on religious worship and all other faiths be damned?

Seems a bit...Dark Ages in mentality, doesn't it?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhist do not have a belief in God our father if anything he saw where they took the secerects of our Father God and put forth in there own crooked view. They are part of that Dragon not God our Father.

A link highlighting similarities between Krishna (also known as Mithilesh comparable to Mithra) and Jesus the Sun of God.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhist do not have a belief in God our father if anything he saw where they took the secerects of our Father God and put forth in there own crooked view. They are part of that Dragon not God our Father.

here is an interesting view linking christianity and sun worship.(posted only one link it has three parts so don't skip the other two)

The lord our father is probably the Sun.

Jesus Never Existed--The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1of 3).flv

Incase the link doesn't show up you can search using the above title on youtube and you will find it

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Umers,

In the past when Lama dies Buddhist monks looks for the sign in the sky for reincarnation of Lama. When they find reincanated Lama then they took that child and teach him -at ages where he could be thought properly.

Were Biblical Magi buddhists monks? So is Jesus raised in India?

We dont know much about Jesus early life except gnostic documents.

Nicolaj Notovič Russian Cossack officer ,spy and journalist, studied Buddhism in Tibet and wrote book: Unknown life of Jesus.

In his book he said that Buddist at Tibet wrote that "divine child is born in Judea-Isa .Isa came to India at age 14 and study Buddhism and leave at age of 29 and set on the way to Jerusalem. Where he teach people and later was killed." In short.

http://en.wikipedia....colas_Notovitch

As I heard Buddha also healed people,walk on water,feed mass of hungry people...so...

Also there are legends among people in India about Jusasa who was sheperd and healer.(as I heard)(?)

Hi The L,

I think this book could be very interesting for you: Édouard Schuré, Les Grands Initiés. Esquisse de l'histoire secrète des religions, 1889

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard_Schur%C3%A9

The Great Initiates is a good reading, and I have to say that the introduction shocked me, it seems written today, not 120 years ago (we would go off topic, basically he complains that religion and science took different paths, instead of working together, and this sclerotized both positions, leading the world to bad times).

Anyway, I think that Jesus could have very well been Buddhist.

Or better, he was Buddhist as much as Siddharta was Christian. They had a message (the same message), that each of them conjugated based on the culture and religion they lived in.

Jesus based his teachings on Judaism, while Buddha on Hinduism, but they were only layers applied to make people better understand and accept their teachings (and this could explain why the Christian God is so different from the Jewish one.)

I don't follow Schurè's writings, but probably they told the same message to different cultures (and thus with different religious connotations): at the end they were the same expression of something greater.

I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't the son of God, but maybe he wasn't in the way we've been taught.

If you come to think, Buddhism is technically a philosophy, not a religion. It took Hindus references and connotations, since it developed in India, but its teachings are universal (just think about Japanese Buddhism).

Confucius too, who lived more or less in the same time period of Siddhartha, taught the same principles.

They could all be expressions of something higher, that through them managed (or tried) to reach us.

I find the discussion between Aus Der Box Skeptisch and Harsh86_Patel very interesting. Their positions point out a very discussed topic in Western philosophy: whether what we see and feel comes from inside or outside us. As SDBS says, "a good philosophy is a good philosophy", but why? Is it because two "good men" can think the same thing, even if completely unconnected, or maybe because both of them are expressing something that lies deep beneath in our souls and is connected to something bigger? In the first case, the two philosophies come from inside, because anyone good and wise can think it. In the second one, it comes from outside, because what we think, what we feel, is indeed the thought of God. So, being God behind everything, they start from the same point, take different paths, and get to the same conclusions. Well, I don't know if I managed to explain me very well.

To me, it depends on what we believe: we can see that they came to their conclusions based on their reasonings, or we can see the hand of God behind them.

Nothing of what others will say will change it, because we'll see everything we'll be told only as further corroborations of our positions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly suspect that Jesus was a near death experiencer and Christianity at it's very heart is a near death experience religion and the New Testament is a highly embellished and out of sequence near death experience story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly suspect that Jesus was a near death experiencer and Christianity at it's very heart is a near death experience religion and the New Testament is a highly embellished and out of sequence near death experience story.

Ok, let's suppose your post is genuine, why do you suspect that?

The resurrection is only one of the many miracles Jesus did and chronologically even the last one (apart from the ascension).

Your suspect could have a logic if he first died, then resurrected and then did all other miracles and teachings, but it's not so (it's the opposite).

And to tell the truth, his teachings in themself have nothing to do with resurrecting, but with love and respect each other. It doesn't talk about tunnels of light or things like that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you don't know very well the subject. Anyway, I'd like to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you come to think, Buddhism is technically a philosophy, not a religion.

I mostly agreed with you and have nothing to add, although I wouldnt call Buddhism philosophy rather religion. But again we think the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I believe he was, but he was Jewish though... so it was kind-of odd. The main difference is that his robe is looser and he casts out demons...

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to research the claims of one individual to establish the connections,just compare the teaching of christ as asserted by the new testament to the teaching of Yahweh in the old testament and to the teaching of Buddhism and Vedic hinduism(especially Nirguna Brhman) and you will be able to see a connection.

Marcenious did have a point that the God of the new testament is different from the God potrayed in the old testament.

"Kingdom of God is within you"-Chritianity (and hence God is within you?)

"God is manifest in all of us"-Hinduism

Correct, when Jesus died on the cross, the bible depicts the tearing of the veil of the temple. This is symbolic, for when he was alive, he did teach this, the kingdom of God is within you... yes...

Edited by SpiritWriter
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was raised Roman Catholic, but there is a line that should not be crossed. Because Buddhism is different from Christianity, there must be something wrong with Buddhism? Christianity is supposed to have some monopoly on religious worship and all other faiths be damned?

Seems a bit...Dark Ages in mentality, doesn't it?

It benefits both (all) sides to take a good look at the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this topic... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a Hindu and Buddhist yogi/monk, yes. I find that the evidence is compelling, and points towards such a truth. The fact that Jesus very clearly quotes Buddha and the Hindu writings multiple times, both in the canonic and non-canonic gospels, is one of the most obvious indications that Jesus was well-learned in the Eastern philosophies.

I believe all these things are of God and therefore do not necessarily need to come from the same 'root' BUT that God IS their root. All things have a beginning, all things come through God. He is the creator... He made each of these 'men'. Women also are creators...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet though it is tempting, given what Jesus is recorded as saying, to see some Buddhist influence, there is still no evidence that he was ever in Tibet or India, not one tiny shred even. Now, though there is also no physical evidence of Jesus being in Egypt during these lost years, it is far more believable that he may have been in Alexandria. Certainly there is no hard evidence, for or against, but surely commonsense dictates Egypt being a more likely place. I know the Jesus as Horus scenario generates a lot of hot air, yet can it all be nonsense? for at least a list of comparisons and circumstantial evidence can be presented for this case, unlike the total nonsense of the hoaxer Novotich. I told further up this thread that his book reads as an obvious tall story in Russian, yet translations do not convey correctly the sense of what he had written, and he did not complain to his foreign publishers when the $ started to roll in. In this affair, Novotich was a 19th century version of Beuval, Hancock, Stichin etc, and should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that was a good laugh. Does comedy somewhat reflect reality in this case? :w00t:

If reality is only perception, it certainly does! Be warned, It could be dangerous - to one's sanity - to to discuss this further.

For my own health I hope this post was off topic! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind Of Interesting i gonna find that book secret life of jesus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet though it is tempting, given what Jesus is recorded as saying, to see some Buddhist influence, there is still no evidence that he was ever in Tibet or India, not one tiny shred even. Now, though there is also no physical evidence of Jesus being in Egypt during these lost years, it is far more believable that he may have been in Alexandria. Certainly there is no hard evidence, for or against, but surely commonsense dictates Egypt being a more likely place. I know the Jesus as Horus scenario generates a lot of hot air, yet can it all be nonsense? for at least a list of comparisons and circumstantial evidence can be presented for this case, unlike the total nonsense of the hoaxer Novotich. I told further up this thread that his book reads as an obvious tall story in Russian, yet translations do not convey correctly the sense of what he had written, and he did not complain to his foreign publishers when the $ started to roll in. In this affair, Novotich was a 19th century version of Beuval, Hancock, Stichin etc, and should be treated as such.

There is no definite physical evidence that Historical Jesus even existed.Your objections can apply to say almost 80% of mainstream history.In most cases historical facts are actually pure hypothesis.Say for example 'The Aryan Invasion/Migration theory' has absolutely nothing to support it,not even circumstantial evidence but is still heralded as a mainstream theory.

Though there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Christianity is actually a continuation of Sun worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no definite physical evidence that Historical Jesus even existed.Your objections can apply to say almost 80% of mainstream history.In most cases historical facts are actually pure hypothesis.Say for example 'The Aryan Invasion/Migration theory' has absolutely nothing to support it,not even circumstantial evidence but is still heralded as a mainstream theory.

Though there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Christianity is actually a continuation of Sun worship.

But I'm not Christian. On a thread with name like, for instance, "Was Jesus real", then my comment would be very different. I thought on this thread that for sake of brevity to presume he was real, even if I have doubts. By the way, I am convinced Judeo/Christianty has large amounts of Atenism and paganism from that region. And Jesus as Horus, well, he is said to be the "Son of God" and Horus is god, not some mythical Jehovah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao. OK harsh. Live a good life, treat others well, forgive injustices, don't pass judgment on another, I could go on and on why I think religions are similar and why. What it boils down to though is these are answers to guide people in the right direction to live a good fruitful life. In no way does this mean Jesus learned it from somewhere/someone specific.

Exactly. This video is for you.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRR5grRt2fI&feature=related[/media]

This is the first video in a series. The other ones go off a tangent about conspiracies, new world order, etc. I'm sure it would interest some UM readers, but it's the first video narrated by S.N. Goenka, a teacher of vipassana (insight) meditation that I think is the most useful.

This simple teaching is actually not part of any Buddhist scripture, it's from the Dhammapada, a collection of alleged sayings of the Buddha. Nonetheless, it is held in high regard.

Pai Chu-yi (772-846) was one of China's greatest poets and a devout Buddhist. Once when he visited a monastery he asked the abbot to tell him the most essential teaching of Buddhism. The abbot then recited the lines from the Dhammapada; "Commit no wrongs, perform good deeds, and let your thoughts be pure. Thus do all Buddhas teach.". This failed to impress the greatest poet of the age, who said "Every child of three summers knows these lines. I want to know the most profound teaching of the Buddha". The abbot replied "Every child of three summers knows these lines, but white-haired men of eighty still fail to put them in practice". Hearing this, the poet bowed low and returned home deep in thought"

- paraphrased from the Platform Sutra - the Zen teaching of Hui-Neng, by Bill Porter

Edited by redhen
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm not Christian. On a thread with name like, for instance, "Was Jesus real", then my comment would be very different. I thought on this thread that for sake of brevity to presume he was real, even if I have doubts. By the way, I am convinced Judeo/Christianty has large amounts of Atenism and paganism from that region. And Jesus as Horus, well, he is said to be the "Son of God" and Horus is god, not some mythical Jehovah.

I never insinuated that you are a Christian,all i was trying to point out is that most of mainstream history is not based on physical or even first/second source evidence.

Do you know that Horus can very well also be pronounced as 'Haris' since the egyptologists are only sure of the consonants and not the Vowels in Egyptian heiroglyphics. 'Haris'/''Hari ' in Sanskrit means God/Son of God/Avataar of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never insinuated that you are a Christian,all i was trying to point out is that most of mainstream history is not based on physical or even first/second source evidence.

Do you know that Horus can very well also be pronounced as 'Haris' since the egyptologists are only sure of the consonants and not the Vowels in Egyptian heiroglyphics. 'Haris'/''Hari ' in Sanskrit means God/Son of God/Avataar of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari

And what is interesting in that wiki article are the other connections with Hari. Horse, steed and sun, which seem to connect to Russian god Хорс - Hors or Khors it can be pronounced in English. Though I have linked Hors to Horus, it is done for very specific and non rational reasons...... I think to link two Indo-European gods with similar attributes is entirely possible as both probably have same origins, though to join Horus with them may be difficult as he seems very specific to certain parts of Egypt in his origins, and has no connection with horses. Too me, a horse culture is a defining attribute of Indo-European peoples from that far back in time, and Egypt had no horse culture until the Hyksos invaded. Of course, it is possible that Hari/Hors/Horus are so old that they predate any horse culture, and are then linked by their skygod/sungod/son of god attributes and have a single origin somewhere in Eurasia.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never insinuated that you are a Christian,all i was trying to point out is that most of mainstream history is not based on physical or even first/second source evidence.

Do you know that Horus can very well also be pronounced as 'Haris' since the egyptologists are only sure of the consonants and not the Vowels in Egyptian heiroglyphics. 'Haris'/''Hari ' in Sanskrit means God/Son of God/Avataar of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari

Horus could not be pronounced that way. To the Egyptians there wasn't even an "S" in the name—"Horus" is the Greek corruption of the original. At best the sounds in the name of this ancient god are preserved as Hr as well as Hrw. The rendering "Hori" comes from the Egyptian Hri as a proper noun (that is, as a name). It was a common theophoric male name derived from the god, but Horus himself was not called "Hori."

None of the vowel sounds are preserved in these examples. The "O" in "Hori" is a relatively modern convention to help flesh out the name for a more natural sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.