jesus walked on earth

[Windwalker]

I disagree. The Buddha does not teach of love of scripture.

I think you misread what syo said. Syo did not say he taught the love of "scripture". (S)he said he taught love, like Jesus did.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We're discussing how a non-christian can be christian (or how I can have the same love of christ) because The Buddha taught love just as Christ.

The Buddha taught a different love. Both, at a deeper level.

I think you misread what syo said. Syo did not say he taught the love of "scripture". (S)he said he taught love, like Jesus did.

The Buddha did not teach love the same as of scriptures. They both teach love. It is the different type of love and they can only compare on surface level.

So, I cannot be christian by having the same love taught by The Buddha. I would need to follow Christ's passion which is in complete opposition to what I believe in order to be christian-born again-in Christ's love.

 

[syo]

I disagree. The Buddha does not teach of love of scripture. The love coming from scripture is sacrifice by the death of jesus christ. No buddha nor The Buddha would teach that love comes from someone's death.

Are you christian? I don't know any christian nor scripture that says believing in love in general means one believes in christ and his father as well as other teachers outside of scripture.

christ and buddha both teached love but using different methods. and yes, i'm christian.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

christ and buddha both teached love but using different methods. and yes, i'm christian.

Christ love is built on his death
The Buddha love is built on his life

Without death of Christ, there is no life
Without the life of Buddha (of enlightenment), there is no death

Christ gives way to everlasting life
The Buddha gives way to final death

Christ says one must die to live
The Buddha says one must live to die

The love you speak of is superficial between the two. Anyone can display unconditional love and compassion. However, if you want to go deeper than that say want to be born again or end rebirth, the love is different, expressed differently, and practiced differently.

They both taught love just not the same love.

 

[Windwalker]

They both teach love. It is the different type of love and they can only compare on surface level.

I'm very confused by this statement. I've never heard that before. Love is love. How, and in what way is the love Jesus taught different from what the Buddha taught? I don't see that at all. According to Jesus to love someone, you do no harm to them. How is this not the same as what the Buddha taught?

So, I cannot be christian by having the same love taught by The Buddha.

Being a Christian means being part of the religion. Following what Jesus taught, does not require conversion to the religion. You are familiar with the story of how Jesus extolled the Roman Centurion, a "pagan" according to the Christian religion, as having more faith than all of Israel? It seems to me the faith/love that Jesus taught transcends religion. In fact, an Atheist can be more a follower of Jesus' teaching than a Christian, if they have and express that Love. What one believes is secondary, a mere support. And there are lots of ways to teach about and support Love.

I would need to follow Christ's passion which is in complete opposition to what I believe in order to be christian-born again-in Christ's love.

The Buddha taught essentially the same thing here. To "die to yourself" is exactly the same thing as emptying yourself of desires. It's overcoming the ego and it's needs and lusts and desires and clingings. This 'self-emptying' to find love is taught in both religions, just with different narratives as vehicles to speak of it's truth. "Born again," is not a formulaic thing, but an Awakening of the Soul. It's Enlightenment. Salvation and enlightenment are the same thing, when you look beneath the surface features.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm very confused by this statement. I've never heard that before. Love is love. How, and in what way is the love Jesus taught different from what the Buddha taught? I don't see that at all. According to Jesus to love someone, you do no harm to them. How is this not the same as what the Buddha taught?

They have different foundations.

Christ taught love built on sacrifice (the death of a person/flesh to go to god in spirit) Christianity taught deeds come from the heart.

The Buddha taught love built on the life of a person not the death. What a person does not what a person receives from god. Buddhist taught deeds come from training of the mind.

Love is dependent in the former and independent in the latter. So the expression of that love/which is love would be different. Different motivations. They both bring positive results and use the same word in English. They are different. Nothing wrong with that. De ja vu.

Being a Christian means being part of the religion. Following what Jesus taught, does not require conversion to the religion. You are familiar with the story of how Jesus extolled the Roman Centurion, a "pagan" according to the Christian religion, as having more faith than all of Israel? It seems to me the faith/love that Jesus taught transcends religion. In fact, an Atheist can be more a follower of Jesus' teaching than a Christian, if they have and express that Love. What one believes is secondary, a mere support. And there are lots of ways to teach about and support Love.

I didn't mention religion but we have different views on it. Religion isn't a bad word for me. I never was indoctrinated in either view and never had a good/bad teaching engraved in me growing up. I learned that through christianity not my parent.

An atheist has different morals than a Christian/disciple of Christ. Their religion/practice of morality is different than a disciple of Christ. Their goals are different and their foundations are different.

These things make up what each person's definition of love is. I don't think you'll hear an atheist saying "by the grace of god, I finally can see my family." Totally different worldviews.

The Buddha taught essentially the same thing here. To "die to yourself" is exactly the same thing as emptying yourself of desires. It's overcoming the ego and it's needs and lusts and desires and clingings. This 'self-emptying' to find love is taught in both religions, just with different narratives as vehicles to speak of it's truth. "Born again," is not a formulaic thing, but an Awakening of the Soul. It's Enlightenment. Salvation and enlightenment are the same thing, when you look beneath the surface features.

No. He taught there is no self and to get rid of attachments as if there were a self. It's not attachment of the body/flesh as in Christianity/christ teachings but attachment of the mind. Also, disciples of christ depend on god to take away their attachment to sin. Buddhist depend on ourselves by advice of The Buddha (he doesn't do anything; he passed away) to get rid of our delusions: belief in god is one of them.

 

[Windwalker]

Christ love is built on his death
The Buddha love is built on his life

This is not correct. Christ's love is eternal Love. It has no beginning nor end. It is not "built on his death". I've heard many Christians say very much the focus is on Christ's life and his teachings, not on his death. And I also don't believe your statement that the Buddha love (say Buddha mind here), is built on his life. This nothing I've heard before either.

Without death of Christ, there is no life
Without the life of Buddha (of enlightenment), there is no death

I think you're confused here. For one thing, we are talking about what Jesus taught, not what later Christians created as a mythology about him, that he was the sacrificial lamb, and all that. Secondly, without enlightenment there is no death? That doesn't make sense to me. I would say the opposite, metaphorically speaking. We are in a type of death without enlightenment. This is the same thing Jesus taught, in essence.

Christ gives way to everlasting life
The Buddha gives way to final death

What? "The Buddha gives way to final death?" Huh? What do you mean "final death"? Death to the ego? That's not a "final death" at all. And if you mean to die to the ego is the path to enlightenment, that's what Jesus taught too.

Christ says one must die to live
The Buddha says one must live to die

Again, I have no idea where you are getting this from that that "the Buddha says one must live to die". I've never heard this before, and it makes no sense. Can you provide some quotes from any of the Sutras on this? My understanding of dying to self in order to live is the same in both Christianity and Buddhism.

The love you speak of is superficial between the two. Anyone can display unconditional love and compassion.

Really? Anyone can display unconditional love and compassion? I actually would say that is highly, highly rare in the extreme! That sort of love is the Love of God. That is Agape Love. It is Eternal Love. It is Christ Consciousness. It is Buddha Mind. I would agree is it accessible to anyone, but the rare soul who Realizes it.

However, if you want to go deeper than that say want to be born again or end rebirth, the love is different, expressed differently, and practiced differently.

Absolutely not. Being born again, is a metaphor for Awakening. The Love is the same Love, that then is in fact expressed differently, in a multitude of ways, like the lights of the night sky, or the whole of creation sings many songs.

To quote my signature line for the Zen poet of the 13th century, "My paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon". That Love, is singular. How is it is expressed is many.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You kinda sound like the Bahai friends I'm talking to in How are these great beings explained. I told them difference is not bad. It means we have diversity of world views and foundations.

This is not correct. Christ's love is eternal Love. It has no beginning nor end. It is not "built on his death". I've heard many Christians say very much the focus is on Christ's life and his teachings, not on his death. And I also don't believe your statement that the Buddha love (say Buddha mind here), is built on his life. This nothing I've heard before either.

Jesus had to live, die, and be resurrected. Without Jesus sacrifice, there is no everlasting life. His Passion.

The Buddha's first precept was not to take a life. His view was for one to train their mind (not receive grace from god) in order to live a virtuous life and die/end rebirth. We go through many rebirths and with each rebirth/each life is another chance to make virtuous actions resulting in love and compassion for others. When we get to no attachment at all, that is our final life, and then we die. No more rebirth.

It's built on life and life in order to die.

Christ teachings is life after death in order to live eternally.

I'm not saying both don't have love to share. I'm saying they have totally different foundations. If you ask a Buddhist that to give love to another is by believing in the sacrifice of an individual, he'd probably drop his jaw. If you told the Christian that what he does saves him not who he has faith in, he'd probably drop his jaw.

I think you're confused here. For one thing, we are talking about what Jesus taught, not what later Christians created as a mythology about him, that he was the sacrificial lamb, and all that. Secondly, without enlightenment there is no death? That doesn't make sense to me. I would say the opposite, metaphorically speaking. We are in a type of death without enlightenment. This is the same thing Jesus taught, in essence.

Actually, when I took refuge it made much more sense. Also, the "death after life" is a Tibetan teaching but interestingly put by a monk in one of her Dhamma talks.

You're born (so you are starting to die as soon as you're born)-->you live-->you die-->you are reborn into suffering/decay. You continue to be reborn to this life of suffering. During which you have time to make good causes and help others so we won't be attached to our selves. Once we get to that point, we actually die because we are not born into suffering (life) again.

Jesus taught eternal life and suffering is not our birth and death but the state of life we live because of our ancestors actions. The death he speaks of leads to eternal life.

What? "The Buddha gives way to final death?" Huh? What do you mean "final death"? Death to the ego? That's not a "final death" at all. And if you mean to die to the ego is the path to enlightenment, that's what Jesus taught too.

End of rebirth. Some call it reincarnation but that gets mixed up with Hindu definition of the term.

Ego is a part of it. We are attached to self and part of that self is ego. That's not the foundation. Many religions teach getting rid of the ego. Not all teach the reason is to die not to be rebor again.

Again, I have no idea where you are getting this from that that "the Buddha says one must live to die". I've never heard this before, and it makes no sense. Can you provide some quotes from any of the Sutras on this? My understanding of dying to self in order to live is the same in both Christianity and Buddhism.

They are suttas on rebirth and the final passing of The Buddha.

Here are some things you may be interested in:

1. Buddhism and Death (Commentary on definition of death in Buddhism)
2. Last Days of The Buddha (Sutta on how we can't escape death). After many rebirths (so we don't die yet) we will finally die. No eternal life.

3. The Buddha's View on Death
4. Timeline of The Buddha's life, death, and parinibbana.
Parinibbana (Skt: Parinirvana; death and final release)
It's a long timeline.

I'm not making this up. I just like saying what I read in my own words. Helps me understand and practice better than recitation of quotes and remembering suttas as christians do scripture. That isn't the point of the practice.

 

[Stonecrown29295]

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ μου μόνος.
he says only the father. NOT his creations. the son and holy spirit are not mentioned.

Did God create jesus and the holy spirit

 

[DavidFirth]

Did God create jesus and the holy spirit

Well, it didn't happen in Genesis when He created everything else...

Who was God talking to when He said this during Creation?
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

He wasn't talking to angels since we were not created with wings. Food for thought.

 

[Jainarayan]

jesus sets the rules of no harming.

Jesus came after the Buddha. Just sayin'.

 

[Jainarayan]

Who was God talking to when He said this during Creation?
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image

The "royal we".

 

[DavidFirth]

The "royal we".

That is illogical. At the time of creation there was no "we" to be royalty of.

 

[Jainarayan]

That is illogical. At the time of creation there was no "we" to be royalty of.

Read the link.

 

[DavidFirth]

Read the link.

Why would He be speaking like that if someone else wasn't listening? He wasn't merely talking to Himself, He had an audience.

The book of Revelation actually refers to the Seven Spirits of God.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why would He be speaking like that if someone else wasn't listening? He wasn't merely talking to Himself, He had an audience.

It's a grammatical construction. Read the link.

The book of Revelation actually refers to the Seven Spirits of God.

Avatars? Manifestations? You do realize that the book of Revelation, like many, or I daresay most religious scriptures are metaphorical and allegorical. Revelation is probably more so than most.

 

[DavidFirth]

It's a grammatical construction. Read the link.



Avatars? Manifestations? You do realize that the book of Revelation, like many, or I daresay most religious scriptures are metaphorical and allegorical. Revelation is probably more so than most.

Yes, I realize all of that. However, it is pretty obvious to me that God was referring to the other facets or personalities of His being, mainly the Son and the Holy Spirit in the verse I quoted.

 

[syo]

Did God create jesus and the holy spirit

jesus and holy spirit are not creations. father gave birth to son, and the holy spirit emerges from father.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

the fact jesus was born, is the greatest sign of god's love. god created us and he didn't abandon us to our fates. he sent his only son so that we can be saved from our evil self and he gave meaning to our lives, that is living good so that we will enter the kingdom that will come. how can anyone reject jesus and his message of love?

Jesus lived for a few decades thousands of years after humanity first appeared and then skipped town and promised to return "sometime" for a max of a thousand years when the planet will last for millions more. Clearly, we are not high on Jesus' to do list or he'd spend more effort.

but the new testament has wisdom

The New Testament tries its best to reframe the OT into anachronistic themes and frequently gets stuff just plain wrong. Jesus' parables sound great for the most part until you start thinking about them, and then you realize he doesn't know squat about lots of different topics.

why do you need other evidence?

If it's true the NT is correct, it should be able to be validated by extrabiblical evidence, and not just "we found [insert city name here]" evidence, which proves nothing of plot or characters.

I just want to know why someone would not accept jesus.

I admire the Way. Jesus turned out to be a poor guide towards it, that's all. He's only useful for a brief intro to the Way. There are far more sophisticated guides, though. One can't live on milk alone. Eventually, there has to be something more substantial than essentially "bumper sticker slogan" morality.

all-knowing, benevolent, immortal, has no beginning and no end he is beyond time and greater than the universe, all-powerful, and absolutely just.

God can't find the only two humans in a small garden.

God can't determine which is Hebrew and which is Egyptian without a literal bloody sign on the door.

God will smite someone because Satan dares Him to.

The cultural history of the magic fruit of immortality proves that the ancient Canaanite gods were only immortal thanks to their diet, not any inherent superpowers.

Yahweh/Yam is a son (or in-law, depending on the source) of El. Being a son means you were born, right? He also gets killed off by Baal every year, per the history of the deities involved.

God is all powerful but can't win against chariots of iron or bring beheaded people back to life. Yahweh was also a god of seas/rivers, so no, He didn't have authority over the entire universe. This is why a lot of Yahweh's miracles revolve around seas and rivers.

God's sense of justice is absurdly arbitrary. Rapists are fine but try to keep the Ark from falling and you die instantly. Genocide is cool if Hebrews/Jews do it but it's a one way ticket to hell if you wear a cotton-polyester blend. God wants you to throw some snacks to widows but refuses to give women full civil rights like Egyptians did, which would actually fix their problems.

If you want more consistent morality (not 100% consistent, but way better than the Abrahamics have to offer) which have similar themes, might I suggest the Dharmics. At least it sounds like they TRY.

do the Quran, theTao or the Gita preach the message of love?

Does the bible? A LOT of death and hate going on for a book dedicated to love.

they know the hour. it is forbidden to reveal it.

So Jesus, the Truth, is lying?

god is one and seperate from his creations. son is not a creation.

Half a creation? His mother was mortal, right?

but isn't the message of love important?

That's why it's important to follow the Way, not caring about the Messenger, who can be wrong.

you have to study and understand jesus's teachings.

And you have to read what's actually on the page.

I speak greek and I can read the original.

What original? When did we find those?

it doesn't matter what the original is and i'll explain why.

So you boast of your ability to read the originals and then claim the originals don't matter?

most people i know were taught christianity as kids that is why.

We also learned that babies came from storks or cabbage patches.

But for a decision so momentous; a decision your whole eternal life depends on, shouldn't you do a little research into the various faiths of other cultures?

Well, God told ME to.

Just like Islam says God is basically over Judaism and Christianity and Christianity says God is basically over Jews and Greek/Romans and Jews say God is basically over Canaanites and Egyptians, God seems to be over basically everyone.

And Yoda.

And even Yoda learned (in the Clone Wars) that the Jedi were wrong, just as the Sith were. You can't have a balance of the Force and lean one way or the other. All hail the Whills!

jesus sets the rules of no harming.

Swords are out unless he tells you to bring them. Whips are fine. Stones are out. Magic is fine. Got it.

 

[Stonecrown29295]

jesus and holy spirit are not creations. father gave birth to son, and the holy spirit emerges from father.

Does the bible not say he created all things therefore are creations