Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

As far as Buddhism is concerned, the Buddha is referred to as Lord Buddha, Supreme Buddha, Liberated One, Enlightened One, or Awakened One. If you're really going to try and argue that he wasn't referred to in divine terms then that's just a joke.

 

But aren't you then getting off topic and confusing the existence of Jesus with claims about His divinity?

 

"Lunatic" is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, so it seems to be an epithet used by people who can't think of a better way of winning an argument than to insinuate their opponents are mentally ill. I don't know of any informed people who think Jesus was a Bronze Age figure (He is generally thought to be Iron Age). Is it the idea that a low status person could be important that you find incongruous? Seems to me that anyone who seriously believes that at least one-third of the world's population is "lunatic", including some of the world's great scientists, philosophers, and historians,, might have some issues of his own. Modern psychology and psychiatry don't support the notion that Christianity is pathplogical.

 

And Writer, what exactly do you need Buddhism for anyway? You claim that Christianity doesn't teach anything and that we could all learn to "be nice to others" without Jesus. But you're somehow arguing that the Buddhist ideas of looking within, The Middle Path, etc. you somehow couldn't have figured out without Buddhism? What exactly about Buddhism is so brilliant that makes it stand out from the rest, anyway?

And how is the idea of a Bodhisattva who rather than "merging with the Absolute" decides to stay on Earth to "save all beings" any less lunatic or DIFFERENT than the notions of Jesus?

 

I must admit that I do not begrudge Socrates and Buddha the proof that I do Jesus. I guess because people haven't been insisting that they are the most important people ever since I was born. Because it is so consistently insisted that Jesus was the most important person ever, I analyzed the data and came to the conclusion that no he was not. Nobody knows who he was, so if he was important at all, it was definitely accidental. And if somebody is accidentally important, and no one knows for sure if he existed, then I need proof. I'm not going to waste my time debating whether or not a religion that is essentially false is rooted in some truth. That would just make no sense to me.

I understand that the OP asked for our beliefs, but this would be a pretty boring thread if nobody gave a rat's ass what anybody else believed. So I don't think I am inappropriately questioning your beliefs.

I think most of the girls who have seen this thread have seen my posts and thought to themselves, "Who is this guy?" But that's just what I think, and I'm crazy.

So if most people decide humans are important, it's proof that humans are important?

Not for me. Something has to be sufficiently important in order for me to render a verdict upon it. This is like me being a judge in a courtroom refusing to hear a case of a little boy who claims his little sister called his pet frog ugly.

 

I must admit that I do not begrudge Socrates and Buddha the proof that I do Jesus. I guess because people haven't been insisting that they are the most important people ever since I was born

This is the problem. You can't let your Western bias get in the way. Gotta look at Jesus in the same light as the others if you want to look at it in an accurate way. Not over or under-appreciating the figure. Had you grown up in India, Buddha or some Hindu gods would have been slammed down your throat rather than Jesus.

Something has to be sufficiently important in order for me to render a verdict upon it.

But that's all a matter of opinion of what is sufficiently important.

 

While I understand the general argument made about Buddha, Socrates is part of Western tradition, so your Western bias argument fails there.

 

It may be more a question of bias against the West's dominant religion. Socrates was a pagan, so he gets a free pass.

 

I am looking at it your way, though, Chinacat. He was some Buddhist guy. It doesn't matter if he actually existed or not and he wouldn't think so either. He would be selfless, not about his own personal glory. That's what I mean when I say his words would be better as a collection of wise sayings. I would say it's not under-appreciating him to appreciate his words, regardless if I accept that he actually existed. I think it is over-appreciating him to be obsessive over whether or not he really existed. It really doesn't matter. The message alone is all that should matter, if we're all truly being selfless.

Well let's just say that Christianity isn't as important as it could be. People could actually be practicing selflessness in large numbers and reading "Jesus's" words. That would be important to me. What's going on now doesn't seem very important in comparison to how I can imagine people behaving. Golden churches aren't as important as giving to the poor and the needy.

 

He's still seen as an Enlightened Master. And how many Buddhists have actually found Enlightenment themselves, if there is such a thing? An overwhelming minority.

 

The philosophical aspect is considered the "mystical" aspect, not the religious aspect. And this philosophical aspect is based on the Tao Te Ching and I Ching, a divinatory system.

The fact is is that EVERY religion has its branches and stems. Who cares what the Westerners pay attention to anyway? Just because you're Western? Well then that's biased.

 

How is an Enlightened Master not a God or Divine? A Bodhisattva is an Enlightened Master who supposedly chooses to remain here on Earth to save all beings rather than merging with the Absolute, as only an Enlightened Master has the ability to do so, supposedly. Gee, kinda sounds like Christ a little.

And yes, Buddhism and Taoism both do need a historical figure to exist because they wouldn't even exist at all if it weren't for these founding members. The more complex and specific you get into the different sects and branches and philosophies of the religions, the farther you actually are getting from the original teachings, potentially.

 

Now I think we may actually be getting somewhere. I happen to agree with you on much of this, although you use a different idiom for expressing it than I do. I think there was an historical Jesus, but whether or not that's so, His message of peace, love and understanding early on became intertwined with institutionalized myth and doctrine. The Jerusalem church, headed by Jesus' brother James, thought of itself as a sect of Judaism. James was more Jewish than the Jews, admired by the Pharisees for strict observance of the law unlike his brother Jesus, whom the Pharisees accused of drinking too much, eating too much, and hanging out with lowlifes.There was no New Testament, the Torah being the only scripture they used. To become a Christian (or Nazerene, as they called themselves) required first becoming a Jew, complete with keeping kosher and for males, being circumcised, which was kind of a turnoff for Gentiles. The first writings about Jesus, nearly a couple of decades after Jesus died, were from Paul , who knew Jesus mainly though his own visions and was less interested in the historical Jesus and his teachings than in the death and resurrection of Jesus, interpreted in terms of sacrifice and atonement. Preaching resurrection and Jesus' triumph over sin and death was a big draw, and eliminating the barriers of Jewish law, particularly circumcision for males, opened the way for conversion of Gentiles. This produced the first division in the ranks, with James and the so-called "circumcision faction" insisting that Christians must follow Jewish law, and Paul's followers insisting otherwise. History intervened, as the Jerusalem faction was nearly wiped out in the 70s revolt against the Romans, and Paul's faction, rooted outside Palestine, became the dominant point of view. By the second century, other Christian sects appeared, loosely labeled "Gnostics"--reflecting a blend of Hellenistic, Persian and possibly Indian (Buddhist) beliefs. As Christianity spread and became primarily a Gentile religion, it became institutionalized with a hierarchy and new scripture. At first, Christians used Paul's letters. The earliest Gospels didn't come along until around the late 60s and 70s, to the 90s A.D., reflecting a growing interest in the details about the Master's life. Beginning with Saint Irenaeus in the 2nd century, the Paulist faction saw a need to develop canons and creeds to decide what the essentials of Christian belief are, and who was in or out (heretics). They saw their main rival as the Gnostics, who were out. In the fourth century, Constantine embraced Christianity and dramatically transformed the religion in two ways: he credited Jesus with helping him win a major battle, thereby transforming Jesus from the Prince of Peace to General Jesus. And he provided financial support to the Christian churches, but to conserve money, gave it only to the "real" Christian churches, leaving it to the bishops to sort out which those were. That became the beginning of an unedifying struggle for doctrinal correctness which has marred the religion ever since. Disturbed by these divisions, Constantine encouraged the church fathers to settle their differences and arrive at common ground, particularly on the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. That resulted in the Council of Nicaea, which gave us the doctrine of the Trinity, settling Christ's divine nature, one with the Father and yet separate in an incomprehensible way that was declared a mystery.

From and evolutionary standpoint, in terms of a viable system of memes, this was a highly successful development, blending the contributions of Greek, Judaic and oriental civilizations in a package that has endured for two millenia and won over one-third of humanity. From a spiritual standpoint, however, there have been compromises. I think many sincere Christians are "actually be practicing selflessness in large numbers and reading 'Jesus's' words, but the message of "giving to the poor and the needy" often gets lost in the "golden churches" you speak of. I think in many respects Christianity has lost its way. What I hope to do is find out how, and see what, if anything can be done to set it right again. All this is,of course, highly impressionistic and speculative. I can't prove any of it, but I put it forward as a reasonable interpretation of history.

 

I don't see how you can trust Paul. Nowadays if someone claims that he has visions of a messiah, he's locked in a mental ward. Given the time, though, Paul was not only biased towards Christianity, obviously, but perhaps insanely biased. At least that's one assumption you could make if you were trying to determine whether there is historical evidence for Jesus. In a deeply delusional state, people will not only make things up to fit their account of events, but they'll even believe the made-up stories themselves. They'll cross virtually any line to further their agenda. So I don't see how this is a trustworthy source.

Christianity has no set way to speak of. It's many different things to many different people, all of whom claim absolute authority on what it means to be a Christian. The only way to set it right is to stop practicing it as a religion, and just simply look to the New Testament as a book of practical advice. Maybe that sounds insulting to some, but I am being perfectly sincere. I think we all just need to take it easy and be zenlike. Stop worrying about Heaven and Hell, sin and damnation. The book is simply a book and is there like any book should we need some respite from our workaday lives. That's what truly good books are for, in my opinion. The New Testament isn't a good book in that way. It's more like a job itself.

 

I agree with you about Paul. I've often thought it was amazing that anybody who didn't know Jesus in the flesh could come into the movement, claim the same status as Jesus' brother and Peter, dispute their views, and gain acceptance.the chief apostle. this guy must have been one of the greatest super salesmen of all time. But it was Paul who was mainly responsible for making Christianity a universal religion, preaching love and brotherhood for all, and bringing Jews and Gentiles into the same big tent. If it hadn't been for him, I doubt there would be a Christianity to argue about. I'd say you're also right that Christianity has no set way, but I think there are strikingly compelling ideas about meaning and morals that go far beyond leisure reading. Just as Buddhism requires dharma and practice, so does Christianity. The earliest Christians called themselves "the Way". Fellowship is important to me in exchanging ideas and reinforcing mental habits. And the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, provides quite a few inspirational passages if we approach it from an historical-metaphorical perspective.

 

Well I guess it's a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg. ideally, spiritually, you should have such peace of mind that nothing you read disturbs you, but some of what you read inspires you. But I guess nobody begins from that place, and maybe to begin with reading it is not so leisurely. Still, ideally I think when you open the New Testament it should be like a refreshing spring fountain scintillating your senses. If what is written in it is that pure. If what is written in it is not that pure, then I don't think it's worth much.

If what you read troubles you, even so much as you're troubled by historical gaps, then I doubt you are in an enlightened state. So I am saying it's kind of a circle. It may require serious practice in the beginning, but this practice should ideally lead to a state of mindfulness in which things are not so heavy handed and you can take it at your leisure. Like sniffing an odorous rose.

After all, if the New Testament were known fully to be historically sound, I'm sure it would be less troublesome of a read for many. The way the texts are currently read, much has to be taken on faith, and I think this automatically troubles people, because what people truly believe are things that are proven. And when we're told to believe something like Christ exists, we feel bad if we don't believe it strongly enough, or even if we do manage to convince ourselves we believe, we must constantly suspend our disbelief. Something we don't have to do for things that we know to be true.

So I think that a positive way to instill the mindfulness that I would hope Buddhist and Christian philosophies espouse would be to cut out all the filler and just make them leisurely reads to begin with. One should enter a tranquil state of mind when reading these texts. It shouldn't forever be a matter of, "Oh shit I hurt Bobby's feelings today. What does the Bible say I should do?"