My view on Buddha

[LaymanX]

The mainstream, historic Christian stance is that evil is a privation of good. Not just absence, but absence of that which ought to be there, which creates a distortion in what is there.

Thanks for clarification. Absence is not a good word.

Moral evil is the absence from the will of the particular good called love for God.

Thus, Satan is an evil being, although he retains certain goods, such as existence and power. These goods work for evil because of the absence of love for God in Satan’s will.

Excellent distinction once again. Although the notion of God as Love blurs the boundary between ontology and ethics. Nevertheless, the “distinction” is helpful for pedagogic purposes I suppose.

No. If Hell were absolute evil, then it would be.

Are you saying that God permits partial evil for eternity? Eternal “pocket” of deprived goodness?

But the “ultimate level” is what we call “heaven” or the “Beatific Vision.” God is present everywhere, but not present everywhere in the same way.

Absolute good is precisely that good (God) which is uneffected by evil. Lesser, relative goods, such as the courage of the martyrs, could not exist without evil, which is one of the reasons historically given for God’s permission of evil.

Hans Urs von Balthasar believed that the apocatastasis is possible and that we should hope for it, but that we cannot insist that it is inevitable. This position has not been condemned, and since the present Pope is a great admirer of von Balthasar’s work, I think there are good grounds for considering it very much a live option in contemporary Roman Catholicism.

I hope this option comes out, because an Augustinian needs an option that is similar to apocatastasis.

I don’t find that plausible–ironically in part because of the “priority of John” scholarship to which you allude below.

I did, and I did not find much to support this way of talking about it. The scholars who argue for Johannine priority are generally emphasizing that John is historically reliable, and at the same time that the other Gospels also have strong theological/philosophical elements, breaking down the dichotomy you are attempting to construct.

Yes, the support is weak. Very speculative end of scholarship. I just threw it out there for philosophically inclined nonbelievers who need an interesting gateway in Christianity. Perhaps they may find some insights into early Christianity that old timers may not notice.

I think that this “middle path” existed long before the Councils–in the Gospels themselves. In fact, I think it’s odd to set the two things over against each other in the first place.

Christianity makes theological claims on the basis of historical events interpreted against an explicit or implicit philosophical background. I don’t think that there are separate “philosophical” and “historical” versions of Christianity, though certainly Origen and other early Christian Platonists emphasized the philosophical sometimes at the expense of the historical.

I agree. I don’t even think the dichotomy is really a true dichotomy. Just set up for clarification. For example, Antiochenes were historically understanding philosophical concepts, and the Alexandrians were philosophically understanding historical concepts.

Thanks for the helpful information!

Francis

 

[benedictus2]

Existence is a good. If all good were absent from Satan, Satan would not exist.

Edwin

So therefore by the same token.

Coke is good. If all good is absent from Satan, Satan would not be Coke?

Good in your first statement defines existence but good is not existence itself. That is where you went wrong with that statement.

 

[saybuddho]

Only because you limit reality to physical reality.

I was trying to describe aggregation, that things (which can be tangible or intangible) in reality consists of its aggregates. I used only a physical (tangible) thing for an example. I don’t limit reality to be tangible only.

Is your mind a reality? Is it a reality we can see and observes are protons,neutrons, etc.

Yes, mind is a reality, it is flow of consciousness. When you see something, mind works with the (visual) sense and the (sense) object, a perception arises, then the corresponding mental formation arises. When you see someone, a man is the mental object, the reality is a thing with (we called) head, hands, feet, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, covered with cloth and other accessories, etc. When you hear sounds (intangible but it is real in reality) a music is the mental object, the reality is the vibrations (wave) of air around you with various frequency and amplitude hitting your eardrums.

In the Buddha’s teaching, mind is the six sense. When you think of a beautiful girl of your dream, the working sense is the mind itself. If the mental object (for example) resembles whoever the young Hollywood actress on trend today to be your ideal girl, the reality is clear. If the mental object resembles a specific, custom girl of your standards (with eyes like this, nose like that, skin color like this, hair style like that, etc,) you don’t know whether such girl exists, it is only exists in your mind, merely a mental object. The same case when you believe in what you called God. In reality, written in the holy book or believed by many doesn’t mean it does exist.

Is your mind an illusion? If you love someone, is your love an illusion?

Since mind is a reality, it is not an illusion. Love is a feeling. Feeling is another element here. After your mind sense something, pleasant or unpleasant feeling also arises. Feeling is not an illusion, but it comes from the illusion, that’s the mental object which you percept as pleasant, beautiful, etc, when you fail to see thing as it is.

Cheers,
sb

may all sentient beings can see things as they are

 

[saybuddho]

And is this realm verifiable? I think it is an illusion or maybe a delusion. Is this not just Buddha’s own illusions which you have bought into because you have been sucked into his illusion.

The Buddha taught the path, the methodical way to be able to verify what he has taught (and he has verified himself), he doesn’t want people accept his teaching blindly. For the followers who haven’t reached the necessary attainment in the path, they are unable to verify, thus the best choice is to accept the teaching, trust the Buddha from the start.

In the case of your religion, since it’s based on dogma, you can only accept the teaching, blind faith, there’s no way to try to verify that the “God” exists, even it’s prohibited to question it. Therefore, I think the Buddha’s teaching is better, far more fair and make-sense than your belief. You may argue (like some Christians have told me) that one can verify or prove when one believe in God. In fact that’s mean you ask one to be sucked into your illusion. I do believe that the God exists, but it is the self-claimed God in my previous comments, the first citizen in his realm who doesn’t even know who he is. If you can tell just one indication of your God (the God in your belief) existence and the indication is not an illusion, I’ll believe that the God in your belief exists.

Cheers,
sb

may all sentient beings can see things as they are

 

[saybuddho]

From this Christian. Hogwash. There is not one iota of evidence that supports this. Another one of those Buddhist illusions that you were referring to.

It’s not based on illusion, but fact. If you read my previous comments I addressed some remarkably similar, parallel, identical teachings of Jesus and Buddha, and they are even clearer from the video link I posted there. And it’s amazing no one could find me the same teaching from other religion or belief.

You agree with a theory that lacks any factual support? Another illusion?

The factual support is also the similarity of both teaching.

Here’s the Christian perspective. The Eastern and pagan religions are all man’s attempts to know God. All incomplete until God chose to reveal Himself.

For those of you who insist in God, I’ve addressed the reason when I commented on the metaphysics of your belief.

Buddha never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Buddha’s teaching about love came from God, from Jesus and when He became incarnate He made that love a reality.

Buddha is too far to compare with God in your belief (which is an illusion), they are not comparable. Since God is an illusion, then the idea “Buddha’s teaching about love came from God” is also an illusion. Jesus is not an illusion, his death in your belief is. The illusion was used to simplify the reason why his body was gone, because people didn’t know the reality.

Cheers,
sb

may all sentient beings can see things as they are

 

[benedictus2]

Paradox is not a lie because we know it is a paradox. It would be stupid to call all paradox writers liars.

Okay let us call it an un-truth then.

Your parable is false and a lie as well.

Everyone knows that parables are not true stories. Their value is in the moral of the story.

You are trying to create a difference where there is no real difference. A paradox has a moral hidden behind its words, just as a parable has a moral hidden behind its words. You are getting hung up on the words and missing the moral.

A parable has a moral, the paradox does not. In particular your paradox.

All words that we use are ordinary, contingent. None of them are ultimate. How can we describe the ultimate if we do not have any ultimate words available to describe it? Siderits’ paradox is a summary of Nagarjuna’s approach to describing the ultimate in words.

We do have words to describe the ultimate. We both just used it. Ultimate.

The emptiness
of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

I personally think this is all just blah blah that does not say anything of meaning at all. It is just this writer’s musings.

Then all parables are also lies. You are applying a very narrow interpretation here.

Did anyone ever said Parables are true stories? The story is fiction, the moral is not. The value of the moral of the story though is open to debate.

 

[benedictus2]

I was trying to describe aggregation, that things (which can be tangible or intangible) in reality consists of its aggregates. I used only a physical (tangible) thing for an example. I don’t limit reality to be tangible only.

How does your statement

saybuddho:

If you say: “there is a ultimate truth which is God”, what in reality do you refer to as God the similar way I described a pencil? In reality, “God” is only exists in your mind, it is a concept in your thinking, an illusion, proposed by the religions (except Buddhism) as the solution for explaining the difficult-to-explain phenomena in life, the simple way but doubtful."

describe aggregation? You were comparing something tangible and finite to something intangible and finite.

Yes, mind is a reality, it is flow of consciousness. When you see something, mind works with the (visual) sense and the (sense) object, a perception arises, then the corresponding mental formation arises. When you see someone, a man is the mental object, the reality is a thing with (we called) head, hands, feet, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, covered with cloth and other accessories, etc. When you hear sounds (intangible but it is real in reality) a music is the mental object, the reality is the vibrations (wave) of air around you with various frequency and amplitude hitting your eardrums.

Exactly. So therefore the fact that your mind is not tangible does not mean it is an illusion. Why would our perception of an intangible God then be an illusion?

 

[benedictus2]

The Buddha taught the path, the methodical way to be able to verify what he has taught (and he has verified himself), he doesn’t want people accept his teaching blindly. For the followers who haven’t reached the necessary attainment in the path, they are unable to verify, thus the best choice is to accept the teaching, trust the Buddha from the start.

So basically only the “enlightened” will know if the Buddha is telling the truth and anyone who does not know is obviously “not enlightened” enough. That is a totally subjective gauge. Therefore one cannot even speak of verification.

In the case of your religion, since it’s based on dogma,

Nope, our religion is not based on Dogma. Dogma comes later after we have come to the truth and thus pronounce that something is true so therefore we can declare it true.

you can only accept the teaching, blind faith, there’s no way to try to verify that the “God” exists, even it’s prohibited to question it.

But it isn’t prohibited to question God’s existence. One however can use reason to arrive at some proofs.

Therefore, I think the Buddha’s teaching is better, far more fair and make-sense than your belief.

Actually the Buddha’s teaching is very limited and therefore inferior.

As I mentioned above it is purely subjective. The Buddha’s teaching is man’s attempts at getting to know God. Since God is supposed to be far beyond us the only possible way we can know Him is if He revealed Himself and this is what the Judeo Christian religion is about.

You may argue (like some Christians have told me) that one can verify or prove when one believe in God. In fact that’s mean you ask one to be sucked into your illusion.

You mean your illusion. If one claims to have proof then you should test that proof. Your way does not present any save to say if you get enlightened enough you will know. But what exactly it is that one will know when one becomes enlightened enough well, only those in the inner circles of “enlightened ones” knows. But how does one tell if one is enlightened if there is nothing to gauge this enlightenment by?

I do believe that the God exists, but it is the self-claimed God in my previous comments, the first citizen in his realm who doesn’t even know who he is.

God does not know who he is? What is He God for then?
Are we talking about the same God who created the universe from nothing?

 

[benedictus2]

It’s not based on illusion, but fact. If you read my previous comments I addressed some remarkably similar, parallel, identical teachings of Jesus and Buddha, and they are even clearer from the video link I posted there. And it’s amazing no one could find me the same teaching from other religion or belief.

That there are parallelism is not support for your conjecture.

The only reason you can see parallelism is because you limit Jesus teaching to that of loving others and being a good person. But that is not all that Jesus is all about. There is a vast chasm between Buddha and Jesus. One is a creature the Other one is the One through Whom all thngs were created.

The factual support is also the similarity of both teaching.

Similarity of teaching is not factual support. I have never met Dr Alice Von Hildebrand and yet a year ago I read something she wrote that is almost verbatim of what I have always believed about true feminism. Your is support is rather flimsy.

Buddha is too far to compare with God in your belief (which is an illusion), they are not comparable.

That is true. Buddha is wayyyyyy inferior to God since Buddha is a mere creature.

Since God is an illusion,

If God is an illusion then your mind is an illusion.

then the idea “Buddha’s teaching about love came from God” is also an illusion.

Since God is the origin of all creation and Buddha is a mere creature then everything that is Buddha originated from God.

Jesus is not an illusion, his death in your belief is.

The only reason you say Jesus is not an illusion is because He had a physical body. As I said before, to you the only thing that is not an illusion is anything that is tangible. So therefore your mind and your beliefs and love are are all illusions.

 

[Sufjon]

The pre-Christians may be likened to the blind man grasping and coming up with the conclusions about the parts. The Chrisitian sees the whole elephant. It may not be a very clear picture of the elephant, it may be blurry and details may not be pronounced, but the Christian sees the Elephant.

I see it the other way around. I see Jesus as part of a broader context of the human experience of God. Jesus is one of many incarnations of God in human flesh. The idea of such incarnations was known for thousands of years before Jesus, and indeed happened before. It has happened since. The things He said were not new either. Jesus was the Avatar for the Jewish people. Others have had their own Avatars. That is the broader fabric through which the story of Jesus is woven. He is part of a continuum. I am very aware that many Christians can’t accept that. Many can. For those who can’t it’s great that you follow Jesus. It would be good though if they could be a bit more considerate of the beliefs of others.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

I see it the other way around. I see Jesus as part of a broader context of the human experience of God. Jesus is one of many incarnations of God in human flesh.

And may I ask who you think are the other incarnations of God?

Did they by any chance also rise from the dead?

Where are they now?

The idea of such incarnations was known for thousands of years before Jesus, and indeed happened before. It has happened since.

Great! Then you should be able to provide proof for this. So please name them.

The things He said were not new either. Jesus was the Avatar for the Jewish people. Others have had their own Avatars.

Okay since you are so very sure of this:

Then please tell me which other incarnate God said the things He said in

John Chapter 6
Matthew 16
John 20:23
And many other verses.
Which other person claims to be the only Son of the God the Father and what other person said that we can call God our Father.

There are other passages that i need you to check but that will suffice for now.

That is the broader fabric through which the story of Jesus is woven.

Only in your mind.

He is part of a continuum. I am very aware that many Christians can’t accept that. Many can. For those who can’t it’s great that you follow Jesus. It would be good though if they could be a bit more considerate of the beliefs of others.

Well perhaps since you are very sure of what you have claimed you can provide support for these claims.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see it the other way around. I see Jesus as part of a broader context of the human experience of God. Jesus is one of many incarnations of God in human flesh. The idea of such incarnations was known for thousands of years before Jesus, and indeed happened before. It has happened since. The things He said were not new either. Jesus was the Avatar for the Jewish people. Others have had their own Avatars. That is the broader fabric through which the story of Jesus is woven. He is part of a continuum. I am very aware that many Christians can’t accept that. Many can. For those who can’t it’s great that you follow Jesus. It would be good though if they could be a bit more considerate of the beliefs of others.

Your friend
Sufjon

When you state above, the idea of incarnations was known for thousands of years and indeed happened before Jesus, and has happened since. What exactly are you referring to?

 

[rossum]

So basically only the “enlightened” will know if the Buddha is telling the truth and anyone who does not know is obviously “not enlightened” enough. That is a totally subjective gauge. Therefore one cannot even speak of verification.

The path is gradual. Those who are a short way along the path will see some immediate rewards and results. Those who are further along the path will see yet more rewards and results. Those who have completed the path will see all the rewards and results. Buddhism provides some rewards here and now.

As more results are seen so the element of faith reduces and the element of knowledge grows. As you progress along the path your knowledge increases and the need for faith decreases…

Actually the Buddha’s teaching is very limited and therefore inferior.

Jesus tells us how to get to heaven. The Buddha tells us how to get to heaven and how to get to nirvana. From where I am standing it is not the Buddha’s teaching that is limited.

Are we talking about the same God who created the universe from nothing?

Yes. This is the God you are talking about:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be.”

– Digha Nikaya 1, Brahmajala sutta 42
The Buddha was aware of your God, the Creator. He used the name Brahma rather than YHWH but from the description this is the same God.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

Yes. This is the God you are talking about:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be.”

– Digha Nikaya 1, Brahmajala sutta 42The Buddha was aware of your God, the Creator. He used the name Brahma rather than YHWH but from the description this is the same God.

rossum

Rossum,

I think I’ve pointed out to you before that this is a highly inadequate understanding of the God of classical Western monotheism. You rightly object when people caricature Buddhism. Why do you persist in promoting this caricature of Western monotheism?

European, Middle Eastern, and Indian religious traditions *all *began with a concept of anthropomorphic gods, and they all came to recognize that such beings could not be the ultimate reality in the universe. Western monotheism in its developed, philosophical form (represented by folks like Aquinas and Maimonides, or earlier by the Church Fathers), Vedanta Hindu philosophy, and Buddhism all represent attempts to deal with this. It is tempting and easy to compare the sophisticated version of one’s own tradition with the crude, popular version of someone else’s. But I don’t think that fosters constructive dialogue.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

I thought Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless? A Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, which is the the highest goal of the Buddhist practice.

Nirvana literally means “blowing out” and you would be blowing out the greed, hate, envy, materialism, pride, etc. which relates to solving the equation of self.

So Budda in essense is the conquering of the “self”. I don’t know another definition other than this.

 

[rossum]

So Budda in essense is the conquering of the “self”. I don’t know another definition other than this.

I prefer a different phrasing. Enlightenment is the realisation that what you thought was your self actually isn’t.

For a longer version, and one from a Catholic, try this:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

And may I ask who you think are the other incarnations of God?

Did they by any chance also rise from the dead?

Where are they now?

Great! Then you should be able to provide proof for this. So please name them.

Okay since you are so very sure of this:

Then please tell me which other incarnate God said the things He said in

John Chapter 6
Matthew 16
John 20:23
And many other verses.
Which other person claims to be the only Son of the God the Father and what other person said that we can call God our Father.

There are other passages that i need you to check but that will suffice for now.

Only in your mind.

Well perhaps since you are very sure of what you have claimed you can provide support for these claims.

Dear Benedictus: Editing on this site is cumbersome, so I have posted your points below, along with my replies.

You said: And may I ask who you think are the other incarnations of God?

My reply is: Vamana, Parsuram, Rama, Krishna and the like are incarnations of God in human flesh who came before Jesus. As was the case with Jesus, each had a different mission for the benefit of creation. More correctly, these are what as known as Mahavatars or great avatars. There are others from more modern times.

You said: Did they by any chance also rise from the dead?

My reply is: If Jesus rose from the dead, it would have been to show people that there is no such thing as death in the first place. The passing of your physical body has nothing to do with the eternal nature of you. Jesus knew that. The root cause of all sin is our association with the ego and the body. It causes attachment, want and fear of loss. Jesus taught people to avoid these things. Association with the body and blindness to the infinite nature of what you truly are is the gateway sin to all other sin. He died for the remission of that sin, or to peel it away so that you might see that there is no death. There has never been a time when you did not exist. There will never be a time when you do not exist. God is not subject to the limits of a material body. Neither are you. Sin is a common affliction that can take root when you mistake the interaction between sense organs and the brain to be you. That is not you. That is a device through which you experience the causal world. You are infinitely more than those sense organs, mind and the body that carries them around. The direct answer to your question is no, they did not rise from the dead, because in reality, nothing dies. The illusion of death is just maya.

**You said: Where are they now?
**
My reply is: Same answer as to where Jesus is. I would ask you in return “where are they not?”

You said: Great! Then you should be able to provide proof for this. So please name them.

My reply is: I did name some of them.

You said: Which other person claims to be the only Son of the God the Father and what other person said that we can call God our Father.

My reply is: God said “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." He did not say, “This is my son and you the rest of you are not.” If He meant that, He would have said that. We are all children of God. Yes, He was well pleased with Jesus, a fully realized incarnation of God. Call Him son, daughter, creation or whatever - it is all God. The difference between the average person in Palestine 2,000 years ago and Jesus is that Jesus knew what He was, because He was a special creation, endowed with the ability to see what takes the rest of us a considerable amount of time to see… He was made having the realization that He was God. Like most of us, the people Jesus came in contact did not see this in themselves. Jesus was born with the Christ Consciousness within Him fully awakened. We have it too, but it is not awakened. That consciousness is the way, the truth and the life. All we need to do is to awaken it in ourselves. That is how you come to the Father. That is the second coming, and it happens one person at a time. This is why Jesus said that we can do all the things He did and more - because we can. This is also why Jesus said that people will say “Lord, when were you hungry and we did not feed you?” He was telling them that they had sinned by not seeing Him in themselves and others, and not metaphorically either. We are clearly one thing expressed as many. He was advising us not to fall prey to the sin born of the illusion that you are something other than or separate from God, or separate from the person next to you. The realization of this is the point at which we stop flipping people off in traffic. Lying to people stops. Coveting what others have stops. It does not stop in a confessional or by being sorry. It stops when you stop doing it. You stop doing it when you no longer have the desire to do it. You no longer have the desire to do it when you realize what you are and who the people around you are. Transcending these desires is profoundly different than an endless cycle of falling on your knees and then getting up and doing the same things all over again, or even wanting to do them again.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

When you state above, the idea of incarnations was known for thousands of years and indeed happened before Jesus, and has happened since. What exactly are you referring to?

Hi Gary: I mentioned them in my reply to Benedictus. My faith has been experiencing these incarnations for thousands of years. It was something of a unique experience for those in the region that experienced Jesus. Because they had no knowledge of the others, they would have seen it as a singular event. This would have been bolstered by the self-centric culture of the Jews among whom Jesus came. They had spent over a thousand years trying to assert their autonomy from the rest of the world. This was a result of their autonomy being uniquely challenged by constantly living in exile. Other cultures with whom the Jews had to live in proximity of were good at the subjugation of other people and cultures. The Jews were prodigiously bad at it. Hence, they were always under someone else’s thumbs as their slaves, or living in exile, or occupied by someone else. The laws and customs expressed in their holy books, as well as many of the writings in the five books of the Torah were an attempt to establish and maintain that autonomy. It is not surprising that coming from this culture, Jesus’ disciples would have quickly embraced the idea that this was an event that only happened to them. It would be a compatible view with the idea that among all creation, the Jewish people were somehow by an accident of divine favor “chosen” in some way, apart from, and special in relation to all the other people God created. Sadly, that attitude conveyed right into Christianity, however, considering the influences I have mentioned, there was no other likely outcome.

Your friend
Sufjon