Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqC8fvIspY

 

And MANY Christians, including many that I know, also treat the Bible and the stories to be myths, analogies, metaphors, etc. In fact, when I was in Catholic School in the '90s, even the priest giving the sermon basically gave the message that these were stories to draw lessons upon.

 

As I already said, you just want to believe that Jesus never existed just as much as Christians want him to exist, and yet it can't be proven. So it's really a waste of your time.

And I maintain that if you're a Buddhist, or merely interested in the subject, then you are following various teachings and pointers that are based on a man who also supposedly lived, had a Spiritual Awakening, and achieved Enlightenment. Therefore, any set of teachings regarding Buddhism that anyone follows are based upon this premise. And if it strays from this, then it's not staying authentic to its own religion. There's no getting around this, as reaching Enlightenment is THE AIM OF BUDDHISM.

So if you don't believe The Buddha existed, you need to at least believe in Enlightenment and therefore Spiritual Awakenings, as pretty much anyone in recorded history who claims to be Enlightened has made claims of first going through a Spiritual Awakening experience, which many have described to be the Kundalini.

 

"Buddhism only works, if it works"...what is this supposed to be? Some profound Zen koan or something?

Enlightenment is seeing the ordinary world for what it is, and seeing the ultimate world for what it is

Sorry but it doesn't really seem like you know what you're talking about, and that you took these words from various Buddhist sources. I've come across these phrases time and again and merely leaving it at that and acting like that that's supposed to mean something profound is bullshit. Can you elaborate at all?

 

It's true that the Catholic church accepts that many things in the Bible are symbolic and not literal truth. I don't think that extends to the actual existence of Jesus. I'm pretty sure that they do believe he actually lived.

But what gets me about the literalists of many Christian denominations is as I mentioned, the fact that they choose to ignore a lot of what is said in the Gospels, such as 'be ye perfect'.
Some years back, a Christian on these boards (banned long ago) told me that Jesus teachings were not actually for Christians, but the Jews of the 1st century, and that all that is required of Christians is that they 'believe'.

This makes me think that whatever merits there may have been in Christianity at one time, it's got too far from the source, and is in many cases a kind of fantasy.

 

If ANYTHING works, then it works.

No, we don't need two different discussions because both figures were both talking about the exact same thing, as does every religion ultimately.

 

Every man has as equal a relationship to God as every other person.

No, they still believe that, but Orthodox Christianity isn't the same as Jesus.

 

How will we know if its working? Is the goal to make one person enlightened? Is it to make everyone enlightened? From a certain perspective, one could say that all religions are ultimately failing, if their own existence as institutions is a matter of importance. Science is what is succeeding. And if there are any truths in Buddhism and Christianity, they don't belong to Buddhism and Christianity any more than they belong to science. I don't think you can dissect religion into its fundamental similarities, either. Religion is as much myth as it is hard worn precepts. To say they all say the same thing is a stretch.

This is a discussion about whether Jesus existed, but it has become a discussion about whether Christianity has authority. If Christianity and Buddhism say the same exact things, then what good is Christianity? It obviously doesn't create the same discipline in its practitioners as Buddhism. So what does it have that Buddhism does not? Why isn't this like choosing between two television sets, one being of a better quality than the other?

 

Jesus was a wonderful singer , and he had a little drum to walk about with . And
with all his heart he loved sheep and goats , bemoaning their sacrifice on the fire .
So he poured the spirit of water on it . Oh , he wondered , if I be so beautiful a
sacrifice will that be the end of it (sacrifice) ?

Carrying around an old rugged cross is a poor way of pretending to be Jesus .
For best results , be soulfully beautiful .

 

I've stated countless times here before that based on my personal transcendental experiences of multiple, profound ego deaths, both pharmacological and non, that I don't even believe there to be a barrier or distinction between outside and inside.


“Really, the fundamental, ultimate mystery -- the only thing you need to know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets -- is this: that for every outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an outside, and although they are different, they go together.”
― Alan W. Watts

I don't know anything about Magick because it doesn't appear to be a real phenomenon that anyone is taking seriously so I cannot get any information about it that is worthwhile. If you know of a good teacher please let me know.

I can't prove that he never existed, you can't prove a negative like that. But I can persuade readers of the unlikelihood of his existence, which is an important fact (just as his real existence would be an important fact).

I think you are under the misapprehension that by proving me wrong, or by pointing out a character flaw in me, you somehow validate your own views, but that's not how any of this works. I can be 100% wrong, and you too can be 100% wrong about everything you think and say, so consider how your energies are being used.

I have no interest in staying authentic to any religion whatsoever, and I do not consider buddhism at its core to be a religion anyways.

If there is something I discover through evidence to be contrary to buddhism, then buddhism is wrong.

Not that I really care what the dalai lama thinks or says as it pertains to me, but what he thinks and says does pertain to buddhism as a global phenomenon:


“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality


You are making the argument that the aim of buddhism is enlightenment, but that is an argument you are making not a fact. Just as saying the aim of christianity is to get into heaven, is one which would be disputed by many christians.

So too I am not so comfortable with stating the aim of buddhism is enlightenment, especially not any kind of supernatural enlightenment which you are tangled up with.

It's a simple matter, mountains become mountains again, if this is confusing to you, I suggest studying your mind more.

You say buddhism is like kindergarten, well you are just learning how to swallow milk properly, so give yourself some time.

I'd love you to start a thread about buddhism vs hermeticism because I've done some research into the latter and found it to be quite lacking, and quite full of unsubstantiated metaphysical claims.

When you capitalize "Spiritual Awakening" like that, it's clear that for you that is loaded with some serious baggage that you yourself are not even completely in touch with.

So no, I don't accept any of these claims. I don't know anything about enlightenment or Spiritual Awakenings or Kundalini, though if you were to say, "show me the money", we could perhaps have a transaction.

 

I don't think it's been established that they do say the exact same thing. Personally I think there are huge differences.

 

"You shall know them by their fruits. A good tree doesn't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree doesn't produce good fruit."-Jesus
Positive people produce positive energy, and negative people produce negative energy. You are what eats you...it consumes you.

 

I guess Jesus by his own words would have produced very bad fruit, then, and we should know him by it?

 

Love your enemy . Who is that whom ? Do not create on enemy for the fiirst thing for the first thing ....for the firrst thing thinngggg > within.. G

 

"Orthodox Christianity" is an ambiguous concept. The Catholic Church has taken a non-literal approach to the Bible for most of its existence, but on the matters you mention, which is the core of Paul's view of the meaning of Christianity, you're absolutely right. Anyone who thought otherwise would be branded a heretic and excommunicated. The earliest followers of Jesus, the Jerusalem Church, however, didn't seem to believe that "God begot his only son, Jesus, to live on Earth and die for the sins of man." (Ehrman, How Jesus Became God). Some of Jesus' followers, Progressive Christians today (of whom I am one) don't believe that formulation, emphasizing the importance of Jesus as a sacrificial lamb, which distorts what I believe to be the real significance of Jesus--His teachings and example--which were of little concern to Paul.

 

So are you presenting this to us because you think it has something knowledgeable or profound to say? It strikes me as a superficial account by a dude who hasn't made and effort to address any arguments presented in favor of the existence of Jesus, which have convinced most scholars of his existence. It is certainly true that we have examples of figures who were purely products of imagination, and also figures who actually existed and became the subject of myth and legend. The video mentions King Arthur as an example of someone in the former category, but there seems to be evidence that he did actually exist http://www.kingarthurlegend.com/evidence-of-king-arthur.html .The minor variants in his name (Arthur, Artor, Artur, Arturius) aren't major obstacles to contend with, and while he didn't have a round table and a collection of colorful knights, he seems to have been a battle leader of the Britons against the Picts and Saxons. Does it matter? It can be useful to historians trying to figure out how legends develop. Same with Jesus. After reviewing the evidence for Jesus' existence, Ehrman (Did Jesus Exist? , p. 337) asks why it seems to be so important to mythicists to argue otherwise. He concludes that it is part of an agenda to undermine Christianity. Is that also your intent?

 

It's a judgment call. If by "very bad fruit" you mean the words and actions of false prophets claiming to act in His name, I'd say His fruits were very good, but their misinterpretations yielded very bad results.