Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

^
Lol, main difference being that other than with republicans and Reagan, and tories and Tatcher the mainstream christians are not the ones who built up or believe in a myth about Jesus travelling to India Actually that seems a (relatively) new myth to me. It is certainly not from the days of Jesus or advocated by his apostles, disciples or early followers (please correct me if I'm wrong).

So it appears you are speaking about 2 different myths in your post. One about Jesus supposedly travelling to India and one about him returning on earth.

 

Religion is a business, like politics. Even the Dali Lama makes his living at it. Pat Robertson and Billy Graham have made millions. Christians say that Jesus was a carpenter....but the bible never says that....he got money out a fish, but didn't like the stuff....said it was Cesar's.
When I lived with the Christ Brotherhood, I learned to live for free. This country throws enough food away every day to feed the whole world.
Join the dumpster diving team!

 

I personally think there was (is) a Jesus...but then those of you that know me would already suppose that would be my line of thinking.

I also think it is not unintentional that there isn't hard evidence, or rather any "hard" evidence found could and would be discredited if at all possible. For I believe that this will ultimately be a question that will only be answered to each individual within himself. I believe the question of if "Jesus Really Ever Existed" is meant to answered by faith.

This is a faith question, and not one that science will ever be able to prove not disprove. I think there is just enough evidence available to cause a close-minded person to question, and there will always be someone that will question the efficacy.

A person that truly questions within himself if Jesus "really ever existed" is never going to find his answer in a science book.

 

But you are referring to someone who, supposedly, RAISED THE DEAD? How many street preachers today have you seen who could do that? Or....say....walk on water? Not a lot of that about.....

 

ain't that the truth...only the names have changed.

 

Underscore "supposedly". That would be quite a miracle and I tend not to believe in those.

 

Well, it doesn't matter to me. I think you're correct that as a result of Paul's teachings it became central dogma to the church. I happen to believe that Jesus existed (also Socrates and the Buddha), but as far as I, the Jesus Seminar, Bishop Spong and other Progressive Christians are concerned, it's the Sage that counts.

 

lol. I did the google search. Most of the sources seem to be Buddhist or are based on Buddhist texts which were written longer after the Buddha's death than the New Testament was written after Jesus'. And there seem to be some discrepancies. The "prince" myth seems to be in dispute. http://www.ancient.eu/buddhism/ As I'm sure you know, there are lots of different versions of Buddhism, some differing as radically from one another as Catholics and Protestants differ. If there is hard evidence other than Buddhist texts, show us.

What you say about Christianity applies to the "orthodox" versions, based heavily on Paul, that triumphed at Nicea, but some of the more liberal "progressive Christians" like myself are mostly concerned with the teachings.

 

It doesn't matter to me,although I believe that he, the Buddha and Socrates really did exist. Gnostics and Progressive Christians (Bishop Spong, the Jesus Seminar, me, etc.) are much more concerned with the moral teachings than the mythology. Back in the day, we'd be burned at the stake, but times have changed.

 

The Bible says he was a tekton, which could be any kind of manual laborer. But "got money out of a fish?" Is that some kind of metaphor?

 

lol. Your bias is showing. The Buddhism you speak of is unidentified. As you know, there are several variants, and Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism can get quite superstitious. To say that "Buddhism" can't be improved on is therefore nonsense without specifying what kind.The Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the teachings on the first two commandments, etc., can't reasonably be dismissed as "zero lessons for the world'. I've been influenced by Buddhism, but I prefer Christianity because it's more inclined toward active efforts to eliminate poverty and injustice. The doctrine of karma can result in sympathetic but non-involved inaction when it comes of suffering and injustice. BTW, what do Buddhist scriptures say specifically about rape? And when it comes to child abuse, I think Matthew 18:6 is pretty explicit.

 

^ This is what it looks like when a theist applies theist mentality to a nontheistic philosophy and system of inquiry

If you want to keep attacking your buddhism strawman be my guest, I've told you countless times before I'm not interested in the theist-ized buddhism that many follow; they are cognitively not well.

I'm not interested in what "scriptures" say, or what "doctrine" is espoused by some authority. I'm not even interested in the many OCD lists that gautama buddha left, fascinating as they may be to memorize for those who play the monk game.

You could say i'm a sophisticated buddhist, kind of how you're a "christian" who doesn't believe in miracles, doesn't require jesus to have literally existed, and dismisses much of the bible.

Did you really just respectfully point to the "moral teachings" of the first two commandments? my god, I hadn't realized to what extent I was wasting my time here.

"don't draw any pictures" <- the second most important rule in the universe everyone! Straight from the creator of the universe to an illiterate genocidal barbarian, so you know it's true. Faith and all that! Everything is a test of faith; if you don't have faith after all, how can you believe the bullshit spread in churches, especially these suave "liberal" ones that are so advanced in their recruitment techniques they don't even require you to believe in the existence of their gods!

 

Actually, he has plenty of nasty things to say about Buddhism and how it contributed to violence in Sri Lanka, militarism in Japan, opressive fuedalism in Tibet, etc. (God is not great, chp. 15) He just doesn't say them on the video Mr. Writer has provided.

 

I was not talking about the guy in Writer's vid, I was reffering to mr. Writer himself. I rarely watch the vids he shares. I find it hilariously ironic that someone with the username mr. Writer often goes to great lenghts to trigger others to explain their beliefs just goes to post a 10 minute video of someone he agrees with/explains his beliefs when he is asked the same.

Can you explain how it is not a myth that the teachings of Jesus are based on Buddhism? Just because there are some parallels doesn't change that this connection seems based on nothing more than speculation at best.

It ain't the truth indeed Saying it is so doesn't make it so. I hope to see a proper argument for how this is not just speculation or a myth (as it simply appears to be for me). Maybe Okie has some insight on this too?

 

You're so full of yourself, man. You say that you aren't interested in the scriptures and the theist-ized buddhism that many follow, and that you're a sophisticated buddhist? Give me a fucking break ...So where are the lessons and teachings that you ascribe to from buddhism coming from then, if not from the scriptures? You said that that's the important part of the religion.

Please, get your own head out of your ass already. You know that you can't prove one way or the other whether Jesus existed or not, you just know that you don't want him to exist so that you can "disprove" 2 billion people. You're already completely convinced in your head that he never existed, because you don't want him to.

As I already stated, the very first seeds of Christianity dealt with other Gospels and words from Jesus that were telling you to look within and find the Kingdom of Heaven within you and all around you. Christianity then discarded these teachings and infiltrated the fear-tactics and control that we all know good and well from Christianity.

But you can't lump Jesus in with Christianity. Christianity is its own thing. You also can't lump Buddhism in with the Buddha, as a bunch of moral teachings came out of Buddhism when the Buddha's main message was to find Enlightenment, which isn't the same as simple moral teachings. Everything else is just watered down shit that's bound to happen when other people start taking a dead man's teachings.

 

Do you think the Dalai Lama maintains his position in the first place because he can make a living from it? Is it a concern that a religious and/or spiritual leader as the dalai lama (or a reverend in the protestant church for that matter) can live of the position he fullfills? Do you think he would stop being the dalai lama if he would have to make a living from something else than this function he has? In other words what is the big deal here?

 

"my god, I hadn't realized to what extent I was wasting my time here."

Your god?

 

Google it.

 

When Jesus wept , the falling tear touched all the world around ... a song for Grandma