Similarities Between Jesus and Buddha

[Grym]

Here’s where you betray your ignorance. Resurrection does not mean reincarnation and really cannot mean that within the context of Jesus Christ. The early apostles claimed that Jesus was risen from the dead and they did not mean reincarnation, they meant anastasis, which the Greeks rejected and laughed at them for. I recommend a book, Jesus and the victory of God wherein NT wright goes through the usages of this word and shows that it could only mean a physical resuscitation of a body made glorified. I knew you would do this and this is not your fault as you are trying your best to defend the indefensible, but you really need to at least attempt to study the issue before commenting on it. You have admitted you have read little of the New testament and if you want to talk about Jesus you ought at least read it and be thoroughly acquainted with it or remain quiet. Just some advice. I would look rather foolish myself if I did anything other than ask questions about the Buddha… bla bla bla…etc

Dude grab a brew, or maybe in your case something stronger, and chill out.

/Victor

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Dude grab a brew, or maybe in your case something stronger, and chill out.

/Victor

What a cop out. You started this discussion and then proceeded to argue for your belief in the apparent possible validity of the idea Jesus went to India and learnt from some type of Guru. Now you want to stop the discussion when it gets too difficult. Bow out with some dignity and at least admit your ignorance.

 

[Grym]

What a cop out… yada yada yada … yawn.

Normally I would have kicked your butt. But out of consideration for the serious attendants in this thread I will refrain from doing so.

Your level of articulation and sophistication (or lack there of) in argumentation is not really encouraging enough for any serious banter anyway.



I mean you gotta do (a lot) better than build a strawman to entice me.
In case you do not know what that is…admit your ignorance and look it up….

/Victor

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Normally I would have kicked your butt. But out of consideration for the serious attendants in this thread I will refrain from doing so.

Your level of articulation and sophistication (or lack there of) in argumentation is not really encouraging enough for any serious banter anyway.



I mean you gotta do (a lot) better than build a strawman to entice me.
In case you do not know what that is…admit your ignorance and look it up….

/Victor

When you present a fairly comprehensive case for the Buddhist Christ against the Jesus within first century Judaism then I think you have a right to talk. You aren’t even familiar with the New testament and yet you speak with such arrogance.

 

[Grym]

When you present a fairly comprehensive case for the Buddhist Christ against the Jesus within first century Judaism then I think you have a right to talk. You aren’t even familiar with the New testament and yet you speak with such arrogance.

But why didnt you say so in the first place? That is easy!

There is no Buddhist Christ. We gotta Buddha! Didn’t you know?

And in Sweden we got this freedom of speech act that enables us to say pretty much anything without knowing anything about Christianity or any testament whatsoever!

Marvelous don’t you think? And yeah! We can be as arrogant as we like too. Even more arrogant than you! Just look at me flow! And I love this Icon shmoo.

/Victor

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

But why didnt you say so in the first place? That is easy!

There is no Buddhist Christ. We gotta Buddha! Didn’t you know?

And in Sweden we got this freedom of speech act that enables us to say pretty much anything without knowing anything about Christianity or any testament whatsoever!

Marvelous don’t you think? And yeah! We can be as arrogant as we like too. Even more arrogant than you! Just look at me go! And I love this Icon shmoo.

/Victor

Nazi’s have free speech as well.

 

[Grym]

Nazi’s have free speech as well.

Not in Sweden. Here there is a law that forbids speaking ill of others because of their ethnicity.

Actually any type of discrimination on ethnic grounds is prohibited by law.

/Victor

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other please

 

[eddie_too]

both the buddha and Jesus were male human beings. that is one similarity.

both inspired followers. that is another similarity.

the differences between the two are far more significant.

only Jesus frees human beings from their sins. that is the most significant difference.

the buddha’s teachings were derived naturally. he did the best he could.

Jesus’ teachings are His own and are derived from His Divine Nature. Jesus’ teachings are supernatural as opposed to the buddha’s natural teachings. Jesus’ Divine Nature was not accessible by the buddha.

the natural/supernatural distinction between the two is highly significant.

 

[Grym]

Now if somebody could answer this.

Could these similarities help in our journey toward salvation?

Do these similarities weaken or strengthen Jesus?

I thought about this for a while. Because I have considered the opposite question by my self and with my christian friends.

From my perspective I would answer mostly no to the first question. It is like comparing two distinct educational paths in the university. Even if they might share some of the courses the final outcome is totally different.

Also intention plays a big role in this kind of thing. You might take the same course in maths but half the class does it to become Mathematicians while the other half does it to become Medical Doctors. so even if the tutor and the books are the same your heart is in different places.

To answer the second question I think it good to discriminate between two reasons why you ask the question.

1. Because your practice will depend on it. If that is the reason then answering this question with anything other than “My Faith is independent on how Jesus compares to other spiritual teachers” would be an epic fail. IMO.
2. Because you are concerned about how others may view this. If that is the case then I must say that the Christian message should be validated from the traits it possess today independent of its likenesses to other paths.

I can understand if you are concerned that the likeness might impede on the authenticity of Jesus message but nobody can claim trademark rights to a good Idea? Why care about historical documents when the real thing is in front of you today. Breathing and alive?

So the question is does Jesus message stand true and deliver its promises still? Does it touch and transform people today? I think it does but *you *would know that . Can it convert its enemies even today. I think it can. Can it perform miracles and save souls? Yes actually it does. Did you know that almost 100% of those who survive drug abuse are converts for instance?

And most important of all maybe? Does it lead to Salvation? I cannot answer that from your perspective. But from a Buddhist perspective It most certainly does. And I am not just saying that out of the blue but because the path described by the Buddha as the path to Brahma is (putting hair color and beard length aside) exactly the same as I have understood Jesus Path to God to be.

For what it is worth.

Peace.
/Victor

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

We care about history because Christianity is based on the historical premise that Christ rose from the dead. If Christ did not rise from the dead, we are the most foolish of all people on the earth believing in a fable. The words of Christ mean little if he was not risen from the dead, if we has not risen he was just another messianic pretender.

 

[Grym]

What a cop out. You started this discussion and then proceeded to argue for your belief in the apparent possible validity of the idea Jesus went to India and learnt from some type of Guru. Now you want to stop the discussion when it gets too difficult. Bow out with some dignity and at least admit your ignorance.

Actually I do not think it would take more than a year or so to walk to India from the Mediterranean? So since he was gone for nearly 18 years? I think it is totally possible that Jesus could have made it to India and back with ample time to digest the ancient teachings of the wise men in India. And also probably read up on the Pali canon or listen to the Buddhist monks of that time.

Also there were caravan route to the Far East was alive at the time so the time to travel by camel might have been a lot less than one year.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

We care about history because Christianity is based on the historical premise that Christ rose from the dead. If Christ did not rise from the dead, we are the most foolish of all people on the earth believing in a fable. The words of Christ mean little if he was not risen from the dead, if we has not risen he was just another messianic pretender.

But people rise from the dead all the time in Buddhism. That is another similarity as I mentioned before. We call it reincarnation.

Really? Is that so important to Christians? I must ask my friends. I have never understood its importance. Would you mind explaining why?

 

[rossum]

Actually I do not think it would take more than a year or so to walk to India from the Mediterranean? So since he was gone for nearly 18 years? I think it is totally possible that Jesus could have made it to India and back with ample time to digest the ancient teachings of the wise men in India. And also probably read up on the Pali canon or listen to the Buddhist monks of that time.

He may not even have to have travelled that far. There is ample evidence of trade between India and Alexandria, and Indian ideas filtered into the Greek and Roman world from there.

I have even seen suggestions that the colony of “Therapeutae” near Alexandria was originally a Theravada Buddhist monastery.

rossum

 

[eddie_too]

if we are just going to refer to unsupportable assertions, we should also discuss the one about the buddha still alive and living on earth’s moon.

 

[rossum]

if we are just going to refer to unsupportable assertions, we should also discuss the one about the buddha still alive and living on earth’s moon.

Since Jesus is God, and God is omnipresent, then you also need to provide evidence that Jesus is alive and living on Earth’s moon.

Or are you just pointing out another similarity between Jesus and the Buddha?

rossum

 

[eddie_too]

rossum your posts continue to display profound ignorance of roman catholic teaching.

they also indicate that you have little to no desire to learn about RC teaching.

i say this because you repeatedly ask the same questions even though they have been repeatedly answered.

Jesus taught us that it is fruitless to cast pearls before swine.

pearls in this metaphor are the mysteries of God and swine are those who only feign interest in the truth.

 

[rossum]

rossum your posts continue to display profound ignorance of roman catholic teaching.

Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Jesus is God: yes or no? Have I shown ignorance of that teaching?

Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that God is omnipresent: yes or no? Have I shown ignorance of that teaching?

You might also want to refresh your knowledge of internet smilies, such as . Such knowledge would help you to understand the internet better.

rossum

 

[Grym]

rossum your posts continue to display profound ignorance of roman catholic teaching.

they also indicate that you have little to no desire to learn about RC teaching.

i say this because you repeatedly ask the same questions even though they have been repeatedly answered.

Jesus taught us that it is fruitless to cast pearls before swine.

pearls in this metaphor are the mysteries of God and swine are those who only feign interest in the truth.

Out of curiosity. What would you call someone who does not even feign interest in the truth?

 

[eddie_too]

What would you call someone who does not even feign interest in the truth?

forthright.