Jesus Was a Buddhist Monk?

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree

there is no tie what so ever

There is a tie - it's just too thin to make anything out of it.

1) Yes, there were Buddhist monks on earth when Jesus lived. Because of this, Jesus and Buddhist monks could possibly have crossed paths - but only because they were alive on earth at the same time and for no other reason.

2) Both were humans (supposedly). So despite vast geographic, cultural, and language barriers, communication is possible.

Now if Jesus actually taught anything uniquely Buddhist, these extreme difficulties could be overcome.... because no matter how he learned it, he indeed taught it, so he obviously learned it somehow.

But as it is, if we're making up stuff about Jesus, we should come up with something a bit more entertaining than this and not pretend like we're doing history.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

You started a debate. please debate the strong points that some of us posed.

I did answer a post just above. Look, if you're after controlling what I do, or don't do, why don't you just tell me what you want me to post?

 

[Caladan]

Though the idea the obscure bible verses can be used to build up an "historical" Jesus better then the Teachings recorded by his Disciplines is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard

I think you beat me to it. the narratives of the canonical gospels are the best we have. they have a measure of historicity in them which should be appreciated whether one subscribes to the resurrection or not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I did answer a post just above. Look, if you're after controlling what I do, or don't do, why don't you just tell me what you want me to post?

Every post praise the beauty, intelligence, and elegant sense of humor of Angellous.

And your signature should read "Angellous is my daddy."

 

[Father Heathen]

Christ was a reincarnation of Krishna. There we go.

 

[Caladan]

I did answer a post just above. Look, if you're after controlling what I do, or don't do, why don't you just tell me what you want me to post?

You posted a thread in the debate section. if you are not up for the debate, I find it pretty disappointing. you posted a video which makes certain assertions, lets discuss them.

 

[Straw Dog]

I actually just posted a thread with this very documentary and discussion not too long ago. I was uncertain about it at first, but then eventually came away with the opinion that he most likely was not a Buddhist monk. There are many similar teachings found in certain Jewish mystical and gnostic traditions that better explain some of his more profound shifts in teaching away from the mainstream Judaic thought of the time.

The desire to promote one's own ideals in the form of such an unknown character are always tempting, especially when there's a great deal of historical ambiguity. I don't pretend to know exactly what his original teachings were before being altered and appropriated for various cultural and political purposes over time, but I still think it's highly probable that what is represented by much of mainstream Christianity today does not accurately reflects his original teachings and character.

 

[Caladan]

I actually just posted a thread with this very documentary and discussion not too long ago. I was uncertain about it at first, but then eventually came away with the opinion that he most likely was not a Buddhist monk. There are many similar teachings found in certain Jewish mystical and gnostic traditions that better explain some of his more profound shifts in teaching away from the mainstream Judaic thought of the time.

Jesus actually preached what some mainstreams schools in Jewish society taught. for example many find his philosophy to be very similar to what the thinkers of the House of Hillel discussed. these were not mystical schools, or fringe groups but some schools that thrived during the time.

The desire to promote one's own ideals in the form of such an unknown character are always tempting, especially when there's a great deal of historical ambiguity. I don't pretend to know exactly what his original teachings were before being altered and appropriated for various cultural and political purposes over time, but I still think it's highly probable that what is represented by much of mainstream Christianity today does not accurately reflects his original teachings and character.

It will always be hard, because Jesus taught wisdom which was not yet to be institutionalized into an organized religion and into central administrations.

 

[Straw Dog]

Jesus actually preached what some mainstreams schools in Jewish society taught. for example many find his philosophy to be very similar to what the thinkers of the House of Hillel discussed. these were not mystical schools, or fringe groups but some schools that thrived during the time.

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the House of Hillel, nor have even heard of them to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps I'll do some research on these schools of thought in my spare time. Thanks.

 

[Caladan]

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the House of Hillel, nor have even heard of them to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps I'll do some research on these schools of thought in my spare time. Thanks.

No problem. there were two successful schools of Judaism during the time, the House of Hillel, who were more liberal towards the interpretation of religious Law, and the House of Shammai who were more strict.
many scholars find it very interesting to discuss Jesus in light of Jewish schools of thought during his time. which is of course logical.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

I think you beat me to it. the narratives of the canonical gospels are the best we have. they have a measure of historicity in them which should be appreciated whether one subscribes to the resurrection or not.

But these gospels don't account for the 'lost years'. And I don't think the Gospels can be given any measure of historicity. The Gospels give conflicting accounts (written by aged disciples, with failing memories, who learnt Greek; I know I know) and in part, some are direct copies from another. Oh, and there are geographical errors too; which is feasible for a Gospel writer whose never been to the area. Other stuff too.

But looking beyond all that, specifically at Jesus's teachings:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I posit that this infers that Jesus was, if not a Buddhist, influenced by Buddhist thought, since this line of thinking is far from the OT Jewish thought of "an eye for an eye".

There are also many theories that Jesus spent time in India; have a google for Issa the Boddhisatva; Issa being Jesus.

I also praise the beauty, intelligence, and elegant sense of humor of Angellous.

 

[Caladan]

But these gospels don't account for the 'lost years'. And I don't think the Gospels can be given any measure of historicity. The Gospels give conflicting accounts (written by aged disciples, with failing memories, who learnt Greek; I know I know) and in part, some are direct copies from another. Oh, and there are geographical errors too; which is feasible for a Gospel writer whose never been to the area. Other stuff too.

Look at key point: 'the best we have'. the canonical gospels are considered the best accurate narratives. they include first hand knowledge of the society at the time. they are more important than Nicolas Notovitch's book which is included in the documentary.
I think this is the important point.

I posit that this infers that Jesus was, if not a Buddhist, influenced by Buddhist thought, since this line of thinking is far from the OT Jewish thought of "an eye for an eye".

Do you understand the existence of oral tradition in Judaism? Jewish Law is much more elaborative and is not read by verses who are taken at face value. many Jews during the time said exactly what Jesus said. these people were not Buddhists, or influenced by Buddhism.

There are also many theories that Jesus spent time in India; have a google for Issa the Boddhisatva; Issa being Jesus.

Do you have any opinion about Nicolas Notovitch and his book, no one can show that the Tibetan documents he discusses are actually in existence.

I also praise the beauty, intelligence, and elegant sense of humor of Angellous.

I think you were simply unlucky that both me and Angellous opened the thread at the same time

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Jews during the time said exactly what Jesus said.

Interesting. Have you any references to this? I'd like to have a peruse.

I also praise the beauty, intelligence, and elegant sense of humor of Angellous.

 

[Caladan]

Interesting. Have you any references to this? I'd like to have a peruse.

I also praise the beauty, intelligence, and elegant sense of humor of Angellous.

The Talmud quotes Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus saying:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

this perspective shows a similar liberal approach to Law that both teachers shared: treating others as you would want to be treated are the basis for the Law or a predecessor to the Law.
there is another famous Jewish saying, that proper behaviour between human beings comes before the Torah.
try and think about it that way, Jesus was not the only Jewish man in existence who thought or discussed these things. many contemporary Jewish teachers and thinkers discussed ethics and interpretation to the Law.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

The Talmud quotes Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus saying:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

I think Jesus goes further; he teaches people to love their enemy, not just to merely avoid treating people in a manner which they wouldn't want to be treated.

In Buddhism 'Giving victory to your enemy' means to love your enemy; because from a Buddhist point of view this creates the causes for everyone to be happy.

But maybe I'm splitting hairs here, and it's interesting to understand that Jewish thought wasn't as rigid as I at first assumed.

And I also seriously doubt Jesus was a Buddhist Monk 'cos have you seen the length of his hair?

I also praise the beauty, intelligence, etc...

 

[outhouse]

There is a tie - it's just too thin to make anything out of it.

1) Yes, there were Buddhist monks on earth when Jesus lived. Because of this, Jesus and Buddhist monks could possibly have crossed paths - but only because they were alive on earth at the same time and for no other reason.

2) Both were humans (supposedly). So despite vast geographic, cultural, and language barriers, communication is possible.

Now if Jesus actually taught anything uniquely Buddhist, these extreme difficulties could be overcome.... because no matter how he learned it, he indeed taught it, so he obviously learned it somehow.

But as it is, if we're making up stuff about Jesus, we should come up with something a bit more entertaining than this and not pretend like we're doing history.

I think if there is a tie its with the gospel authors not the yeshua charactor

 

[Father Heathen]

I also praise the beauty, intelligence, and elegant sense of humor of Angellous.

He's the Carrot Top of RF.

 

[Caladan]

I think Jesus goes further; he teaches people to love their enemy, not just to merely avoid treating people in a manner which they wouldn't want to be treated.

In Buddhism 'Giving victory to your enemy' means to love your enemy; because from a Buddhist point of view this creates the causes for everyone to be happy.

The similarity to Buddhist wisdom does not mean that people in various regions do not promote the same thinking.
I am willing to consider that what Jesus is promoting can be very unique, but I don't find it compelling to accept that it arrived from lost years in the Himalaya exposed to Buddhist teachings.

But maybe I'm splitting hairs here, and it's interesting to understand that Jewish thought wasn't as rigid as I at first assumed.

Judaism during the times of Jesus had several streams, schools and movements. they held a variety of ideas and had different approaches to the corpus of their culture.

And I also seriously doubt Jesus was a Buddhist Monk 'cos have you seen the length of his hair?

For what its worth, the video was entertaining, the material is engaging in general.

 

[outhouse]

But these gospels don't account for the 'lost years'.

By what little we know of the real yeshua, we do know how he lived and grew up.

Much can be pulled for how he started with John's teachings left off. By following John the babtist and yeshuas relationship there is no room at all for "your connection" we can see pretty clearly the evolution of yeshuas teachings during his 3 year reign

 

[Me Myself]

I wouldn´t say he was a buddhist monk, but I am sure he had some buddhist and/or hinduist influences. It would have been very easy for him to travel to India as for the commercial routes that went there.

As pointed out, he didn´t speak about buddha or was a carbon copy teacher of buddhism, this is why I would say he was influenced (maybe even deeply so) but not 100% buddhist. At least I wouldn´t say buddhism was his central message.

I mean when you can argue with your locals about the local spirituality at your 12 and be deemed insightful, chances are you need some new spiritual inspirations if you wanna keep growing spiritualy. It´s just how it is.