Jesus of Nazareth Studied the Bhagavad Gita and buddhist texts

[Brian Schuh]

Jesus attended the synagogue and the Temple. He observed the Passover. He asserted that he wanted his followers to observe the Halakha. He told his disciples only to preach to Jews. How much more of a Jew can you get? Yes, there were a few Buddhists in the Roman Empire. There were also millions of Pagans. He could have been either, but he was a Jew.

As for surviving crucifixion, as Rival said, you didn't. It was an execution, and you weren't taken down until you were well and truly dead, even if it took days.

I agree, Jesus was a Jew of Jews. It took 120 Jewish men to start a "movement." That was the number at the time of the first Pentecost, according to Acts (assuming it is accurate.) However, this movement (Nazarenes or Ebionites) was persecuted out of existence by the Romans. It is claimed they had one gospel they added to the Tanakh called Mathew (in Hebrew) and it is mentioned by Church Fathers, but it said nothing of a virgin birth, is not the Mathew we have now, and it isn't extant.

What the Yeshua of Nazareth taught is largely lost to history. But he was definitely a Jew, no matter if he studied Egyptian magic or the teaching of Buddha.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, alleged to speak of John the Baptist and Jesus, are inconclusive. The Teacher of Righteousness in the Scrolls could be Jesus, someone else, or a foretold messiah who never arrived to save the Essenes.

Jesus could have studied with the Pharisees, and might have studied with the Essenes when he went to fast in the wilderness.

The bottomline is that we don't know a whole lot for a fact. But I believe without a doubt he was a Jew. Maybe even started a new movement along side Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. But it was persecuted away with no one surviving to tell us the truth.

 

[sayak83]

Well then show us the 3000BC version of the ten commandments, if you have it handy and can show its just the same sort of moral code, which I don't think you can, I think you're bluffing.

Oh with pleasure. They will be the Maxims of Ptahotep (2500 BCE) and the ideals of Maat (3000 BCE onwards).
Here is a detailed treatment of Maat, which ground the philosophy of ethics in ancient Egypt.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Maat_the_Moral_Ideal_in_Ancient_Egypt.html?id=ams2OPbmHMUC
Maxims of Ptahotep are detailed instructions on how to conduct oneself ethically in public and private life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maxims_of_Ptahhotep

The full translation and detailed history is here
http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/ptahhotep.htm

Excerpts

Do not scheme against people,
(88) (for) god punishes accordingly.
(89) If a man (nevertheless) says : 'I shall live that way.',
(90) he will lack bread for his mouth.
(91) If a man says : 'I shall be rich.'
(92) He will have to say : 'My cleverness has snared me.' (22)
(93) If a man says : 'I will rob someone.',
(94) he will, in the end, make a gift to a stranger !(23)
(95) People's schemes do not prevail.
(96) God's command is what prevails.
(97) Live then in the midst of peace (with what You have),
(98) (for) what they give comes by itself.

If You plow and there is growth in the field,
(128) (because) god lets it prosper in your hand,
(129) do not boast about it at your neighbour's side,
(130) for one has great respect for the silent man.
(131) If a man of good character is a man of wealth,
(132) he takes possession like a crocodile,(28) even in court.
(133) Do not impose on one who is childless :
(134) neither criticize, nor boast of it.(29)
(135) There is many a father who has grief,
(136) and a mother of children less content than another (without).
(137) It is the lonely whom god fosters,
(138) while the family man prays for a follower.(30)

If You are among the people,
(185) gain allies through being trustful of heart.
(186) The trustful of heart does not vent his belly's speech.(37)
(187) He will himself become a man who commands,
(188) a man of means thanks to his behavior.
(189) May your name be good without You talking about it.
(190) You body is sleek, your face turns towards your people,
(191) and one praises You without You knowing (it).
(192) (But) him whose heart obeys his belly disappears ;(38)(193) he raises contempt of himself in place of love.
(194) His heart is denuded, his body unanointed.
(195) The great of heart is a gift of god.
(196) He who obeys his belly, obeys the enemy.(39)

If You want your conduct to be perfect,
(236) deliver yourself from every evil,
(237) (and) combat against the greed of the heart.
(238) It is a grievous sickness without cure,
(239) impossible to penetrate.
(240) It causes disaster among fathers and mothers,
(241) among the brothers of the mother,
(242) and parts wife from husband.
(243) It is an amalgam of all evils,
(244) a bundle of all hateful things.
(245) That man endures who correctly applies Maat,
(246) and walks according to his stride.(48)
(247) He will make a will by it.
(248) The greedy of heart has no tomb !(49)
Do not be greedy of heart in the division (of goods).(50)
(250) Do not covet more than your share.
(251) Do not be greedy of heart toward your kin.
(252) The kind has a greater claim than the rude.
(253) The family of the latter reveals very little,(51)
(254) (for) he is deprived of what speech brings.(52)(255) Even a little of what is craved,
(256) makes conflict rise in a cool-bellied man.(53)

A more theologically driven set of moral maxims and commandments are the instrictions of Amen-em-apt from 1300 BCE. This one deserves to be read in full.
http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/amen_em_apt.htm

Chapter 6 :
steal no land and eat from your own field

08 he will be caught by the might of the Moon.29
09 Recognize him who does this on Earth ! VIII

19 One pleases god with the might of the Lord,30

22 Beware of the Lord of All ! 31

27 Better is a bushel given You by the god,32

29 They stay not a day in bin and barn, IX

33 Better is poverty in the hand of the god,33

35 Better is bread with a happy heart,34

 

[Lyndon]

But the Egyptians by all accounts were polytheist, why is there only one supreme God mentioned in your text?? Maybe they were under the influence of Moses and his crew???

 

[paarsurrey]

It is theorized that Jesus Christ wasn't killed during the crucifixion and he escaped to India (Kashmir valley).
The ahhamadiya Muslim community there believe that the man lived upto 80 and was buried at a shrine in Srinagar.
His grave is believed to have a footprint of him that shows the impact of nails driven through his feet.

The same theory goes further to prescribe the lost years of Jesus, from the ages of 14-29, Jesus spent his time in India learning mainly buddhist teachings, but also a bit about Vedic literature and the Bhagavad Gita.
Which could explain the striking similarities between Buddhist teachings and Jesus'.

The shrine where Jesus is said to be buried is the only tomb that in that region that is placed according to jewsh traditions.

It certainly is an interesting idea... But does any evidence exists to support it?
Was Jesus indeed a Buddhist?

Jesus did not spend time from age 14-29 in India, he spent this time in Egypt with his mother Mary. Jesus went to India after the event of Crucifixion in whihc he survived death.
Regards

 

[sayak83]

But the Egyptians by all accounts were polytheist, why is there only one supreme God mentioned in your text?? Maybe they were under the influence of Moses and his crew???

There isn't. Like in India, different people preferentially worshipped one God or Goddess above the rest. In any case Maat is the Goddess of righteousness and goodness and morality, so she is invoked when talking about ethics. But that is completely irrelevant
I said
"The moral principles of the entire human society is similar, from Confucious, Aristotle, Buddha, Jesus. Shows nothing other that they lived in human societies. Australian or Saan tribes also have the same moral code. I can quote the same moral principles from Egyptian scroll of 3000 BCE. The moral principles are not innovative at all among these people."

And I have. Showing definitively that none of these ethical teachings were anything new to the area. They crop as soon as historical records begin to appear in that region. Nothing new was being said at all on the ethics and morality front by these religious prophets etc.

Furthermore unless you can show that the OT testament was written before 900-800 BCE (as most biblical scholar believe), your speculation is off by 1500 years.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Jesus did not spend time from age 14-29 in India, he spent this time in Egypt with his mother Mary. Jesus went to India after the event of Crucifixion in whihc he survived death.
Regards

Yeah, I also believe Jesus studied in Egypt, including Egyptian magic, whatever that meant at the time. That is the basis of the Pharisees claim that he performed his miracles by magic. Whether sorcery or trickery or maybe really of God, I don't know. He probably studied other subjects in Egypt as well. I am ignorant of what Egyptian curriculum consisted of, and I don't really care either.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Jesus did not spend time from age 14-29 in India, he spent this time in Egypt with his mother Mary. Jesus went to India after the event of Crucifixion in whihc he survived death.
Regards

That was during infancy. After Herod killed tge children thinking of one of them as Jesus, Gabriel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to return back.
There are stories of Jesus being little and preaching at the temple in his home town.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Why does ancient Gnostic literature claim Jesus as one of their teachers? Is that beyond the scope of this thread?

Gnostics claim the Gospel of John as their own. What do Gnosticism and Jesus have to do with each other?

 

[idav]

Why does ancient Gnostic literature claim Jesus as one of their teachers? Is that beyond the scope of this thread?

Gnostics claim the Gospel of John as their own. What do Gnosticism and Jesus have to do with each other?

It would seem Jesus claimed gnosis and claimed to spread the ability to others. The mechanics of how that works shouldn't be as much of an issue. God shouldn't really have a problem reaching humans.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is theorized that Jesus Christ wasn't killed during the crucifixion and he escaped to India (Kashmir valley).
The ahhamadiya Muslim community there believe that the man lived upto 80 and was buried at a shrine in Srinagar.
His grave is believed to have a footprint of him that shows the impact of nails driven through his feet.

The same theory goes further to prescribe the lost years of Jesus, from the ages of 14-29, Jesus spent his time in India learning mainly buddhist teachings, but also a bit about Vedic literature and the Bhagavad Gita.
Which could explain the striking similarities between Buddhist teachings and Jesus'.

The shrine where Jesus is said to be buried is the only tomb that in that region that is placed according to jewsh traditions.

It certainly is an interesting idea... But does any evidence exists to support it?
Was Jesus indeed a Buddhist?

Hindu maybe. Not Buddhist.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Hindu maybe. Not Buddhist.

Hindu less likely. It was in a Buddhist monastery in the Kashmir region where some identification of a msn with attributes like Jesus was found.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hindu less likely. It was in a Buddhist monastery in the Kashmir region where some identification of a msn with attributes like Jesus was found.

What's the lineage of the monastery?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Those who declare that Jesus wasn't crucified are all relying on texts written long afterwards. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing about 60 years after Jesus's death, quite clearly said he was executed and expressed surprise that his followers didn't disband after his death. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 20 years later, describes Christianity as a mischievous superstition, named for Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius. I think they trump the Quran!

 

[Brian Schuh]

It seems if Jesus survived, he would have needed to go to an intensive care unit, he wouldn't have got up a day or two later. A schizophrenic told me that a disciple stepped in and was crucified in his place, so Jesus could live. Now I listen to schizophrenics, (they call me one) but I always give them the grain of salt, cause he didn't cite a source. Probably a Gnostic source.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Those who declare that Jesus wasn't crucified are all relying on texts written long afterwards. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing about 60 years after Jesus's death, quite clearly said he was executed and expressed surprise that his followers didn't disband after his death. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 20 years later, describes Christianity as a mischievous superstition, named for Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius. I think they trump the Quran!

Not really.
Josephus was born around 70 AD while Jesus died in 33 AD.
So, he's just parroting what others are saying as he's not an eye witness.
Also Josephus was an orthodox Jew till the day he died, who mentions Jesus as a savior. It is very unlikely that it's an ACTUAL statement from him.
Major Christian apologists agree that his book has Christians edited parts in it
Tacticus lived in the second century. How's he a credible source of testimony?
He only speaks on christus as the deity who was worshipped by Christians.
The whole section was about Christians being used as scapegoats under the regime of Nero.
Point the younger wasn't an eye witness either.
So to sum up, no credible evidence.

 

[Augustus]

Those who declare that Jesus wasn't crucified are all relying on texts written long afterwards. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing about 60 years after Jesus's death, quite clearly said he was executed and expressed surprise that his followers didn't disband after his death. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 20 years later, describes Christianity as a mischievous superstition, named for Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius. I think they trump the Quran!

They say he only appeared to be crucified. To everyone except his disciples who knew better, it appeared that Jesus was crucified. So a body with Jesus' appearance was crucified, and everyone believed it was Jesus.

Not that I believe this myth, but if it was true, then Josephus could still say he was crucified and be 'correct'.

Tacticus lived in the second century. How's he a credible source of testimony?

Senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus would have access to Roman records. Given that many Romans (and Jews) hated the Christians, if Jesus wasn't crucified, why aren't there lots of people denying he even existed?

So to sum up, no credible evidence.

This basically says we have no credible evidence for anything in ancient history.

There is plenty of credible evidence, what there is not is indisputable proof. The evidence for his crucifixion is very strong by ancient historical standards though.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is theorized that Jesus Christ wasn't killed during the crucifixion and he escaped to India (Kashmir valley).
The ahhamadiya Muslim community there believe that the man lived upto 80 and was buried at a shrine in Srinagar.
His grave is believed to have a footprint of him that shows the impact of nails driven through his feet.
The same theory goes further to prescribe the lost years of Jesus, from the ages of 14-29, Jesus spent his time in India learning mainly buddhist teachings, but also a bit about Vedic literature and the Bhagavad Gita.
Which could explain the striking similarities between Buddhist teachings and Jesus'.
The shrine where Jesus is said to be buried is the only tomb that in that region that is placed according to jewsh traditions.
It certainly is an interesting idea... But does any evidence exists to support it?
Was Jesus indeed a Buddhist?

One may like to see following BBC Documentary:

Did Jesus Die - BBC Documentary (1/5)

Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As for surviving crucifixion, as Rival said, you didn't. It was an execution, and you weren't taken down until you were well and truly dead, even if it took days.

Well, he "died early" and was taken down more for religious ritual reasons than proof of death...

I don't recall anyone doing an EKG or EEG on him or anything ...

or do you think Jesus went to India to retire??

After his stressful ministry, I'd hightail it out of there too and just Netflix and chill.

 

[paarsurrey]

DavidMcCann said: ↑
As for surviving crucifixion, as Rival said, you didn't. It was an execution, and you weren't taken down until you were well and truly dead, even if it took days.

Well, he "died early" and was taken down more for religious ritual reasons than proof of death...
I don't recall anyone doing an EKG or EEG on him or anything ...

Jesus was just a few hours on the Cross, no-one died on the Cross in a few hours.
Regards

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Also Josephus was an orthodox Jew till the day he died, who mentions Jesus as a savior. It is very unlikely that it's an ACTUAL statement from him. Major Christian apologists agree that his book has Christians edited parts in it

Josephus refers to Jesus in two places. In one, he says that James, the Christian leader in Jerusalem who was stoned, was "the brother of the Jesus whom they claimed was the messiah." That obviously is not a Christian insertion. The other passage has two interpolations that are easily spotted by anyone with experience of textual criticism or even just of using the apparatus criticus in Classical texts. The text runs (I'm quoting from memory — too lazy to look up the text and translate it! — and I've left out any punctuation as that would not have been used by J.):

"he was a wise man [if he was only a man [he was the messiah]] who performed strange deeds and taught many people on account of his teaching the leaders of our people made accusations against him and he was sentenced to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate after his death his followers did not lose faith in him and the movement called Christians still exists."

The square brackets mark the insertions and the order in which the were added, the first by a sympathiser, the second by a believer. They stand out because they don't fit the beliefs of J. or the flow of the text, so they couldn't have been written by Josephus. But the rest of passage must be authentic as a Christian would not have been surprised by the persistence of Christianity, nor would he have spoken of "our people".

The fact that J. was not a contemporary of Jesus doesn't mean that he was "parroting" things. If some-one born in 1980 wrote a book about Hitler, would you refuse to read it? It would be a secondary source, as opposed to a primary one, but sometimes secondary sources are all we have in history. There are no primary sources for Alexander the Great, for example.