(February 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The God of Abraham never taught anyone to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Maybe not the old testament god but the Golden rule was originally quoted from Jesus. Matthew 7:12

(February 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: As far as the metaphysical goes, are you aware of an account that is not severely biased? Of course the Bible is a biased account, all accounts are biased. I was saying there was a way to encounter the bias in the Bible through your own bias and come up with a more informed bias.

How would you determine if a metaphysical position is free from bias?

(February 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: As for the epistemology, that has been a part of theology since the beginning. Of course you probably wouldn't like the writings of Justin Martyr, since his is a very Christian epistemology. Nevertheless, modern writers such as Rob Bell would say that "all truth is God's truth," or translated out of religious language, "there are truths present in the world which all share a common truth-source." Once again, probably not one you would like all that much, but it does show that people have used Scripture as a jumping off point for epistemological reflection. I'm going to guess you would disagree with most of it, but it can lead to some beneficial ideas.

As I understand, much of Biblical epistemology is in support of revealed knowledge rather than discovered knowledge. So, if Bible is used as a jumping point, most people would not rely on reason to gain knowledge, but on authority. (As seems to be the case with many religious people).

(February 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: There are all kinds of evils in the world caused by people using Scripture to justify their own twisted self-righteousness.

The scripture is the problem here. The scripture itself is so twisted and self-contradictory, that it can be used to justify almost anything. That is true for the scripture of almost any religion, not just Christianity. Its hard to imagine any other area of human endeavor where one work can be used to justify so many conflicting ideas at the same time.

(February 21, 2012 at 4:31 am)chipan Wrote: Maybe not the old testament god but the Golden rule was originally quoted from Jesus. Matthew 7:12

um...no. from wikipedia

Quote:Ancient China
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:
"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?" – Confucius[13][14]
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius[15]
"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[16]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[17]

Sorry to break it to you but much of Jesus' views on such matters were around several centuries before he was allegedly born.

(February 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: Hmm. . . That's still not the definition of "imagination" that I'm thinking of. I'll have to find a good article on post-post modernity to link you to.

As far as the metaphysical goes, are you aware of an account that is not severely biased? Of course the Bible is a biased account, all accounts are biased. I was saying there was a way to encounter the bias in the Bible through your own bias and come up with a more informed bias.
As for the moral, I believe I addressed that in an earlier post on this thread.
As for the epistemology, that has been a part of theology since the beginning. Of course you probably wouldn't like the writings of Justin Martyr, since his is a very Christian epistemology. Nevertheless, modern writers such as Rob Bell would say that "all truth is God's truth," or translated out of religious language, "there are truths present in the world which all share a common truth-source." Once again, probably not one you would like all that much, but it does show that people have used Scripture as a jumping off point for epistemological reflection. I'm going to guess you would disagree with most of it, but it can lead to some beneficial ideas.

Even after all of this you might argue that it is harmful. There are all kinds of evils in the world caused by people using Scripture to justify their own twisted self-righteousness. That's true, that's basically my entire childhood. The institutionalized church is the most evil, damaging thing I have ever encountered. There are also people like Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. who used Scripture to shape their imaginations and did some truly great things with it. There are people today doing the same things. I would say the Bible can be beneficial, not that it is always beneficial. I'm just thinking about what's possible, but if you are not comfortable with the Bible, that's fine too, don't worry about it.

---

(February 19, 2012 at 4:00 am)Abracadabra Wrote:

(February 19, 2012 at 1:19 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: So even if you have subsumed your morality into your very being, you still got it from someone else.

How can you be so sure of that?

For me personally it may very well be that I got my morals from my mother. I most certainly didn't get them from my dad.

Of, they could have simply been my own personal choices too. In fact, I actually did make a conscious choice that I wanted to be a "good person" quite early in my life. I actually made that choice quite consciously. Almost like you'd chose what career you might want to go into.

Well the idea that you get everything from someone is pretty common in psychology and philosophy now-a-days. All thoughts are based on data, where would you be getting this totally autonomous data apart from your senses?

As for making a decision to be a good person, you would have to have a definition of what you thought a good person is, which brings me to . . .

(February 19, 2012 at 4:00 am)Abracadabra Wrote: However, when it came to defining what is meant by a "good person", I don't feel that I needed to look to anyone else for guidance on that. On the contrary I intuitively knew that to be a "good person" simply boils down to "Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you". I didn't even get that idea from anywhere. From my perspective it's just the obvious thing.

In defining what you "intuitively" knew to be good you quoted Luke 6:31 straight out of the Bible. The "golden rule," as it is called, was popularized by Christianity in western culture and so most people would use it as their definition of what a "good" person is, while some other cultures have concepts of being a "good" person that are based on communal identity and honor. The fact that you used the golden rule as your definition of "good" shows that you are operating out of a subsumed idea.

(February 19, 2012 at 4:00 am)Abracadabra Wrote: After all, if the core philosophy truly is based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", then why would you need to look to someone else for a model on that? You should be able to know immediately what is "good" or "bad", etc., based entirely on how you would like to be treated by other people.

There would be no need for any outside role model or influence at all.

I agree that Luke 6:31 provides a great moral insight on how to empathize with others in your morality. However, how you "like" to be treated is a somewhat subjective standard, and the treatment you like may actually offend some people. Also, people with various psychological issues may have strange ideas about what constitutes "good" treatment, so there is some thinking to be done here.

Doesn't that demonstrate that there is nothing supporting the metaphysical other than many varied points of view?
I'm not sure any of that really demonstrated the Bibles value. We would have morals without the Bible purely because its common sense that if you murder someones brother they might decide to murder you and it would also have vast implications.
Just as philosophically we'd still be asking questions on the nature of our existence.
The very fact you've assigned the prefix "Christian" to epistemology proves my point. You can't have a culture that owns it own special definition of what it is otherwise that undermines it entirely.
Can you actually tell me, on a purely physical basis, what positive things the Bible gives us that wouldn't be there in its absence?

(February 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Can you actually tell me, on a purely physical basis, what positive things the Bible gives us that wouldn't be there in its absence?

That is truly The Question that really needs to be in the forefront when discussing the Hebrew mythology.

The very problem at the root of this hateful dogma is that it proclaims that non-believers are "heathens" who have rebelled against this God.

Fact Number One:

In terms of moral values, there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that cannot also be found in the teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and many other non-Hebrew teachings.

In terms of moral values, Jesus did not bring anything new to the world. Other than to renounce the immoral behaviors that were actually taught by the Torah or Old Testament.

So this religion has nothing to offer the world that can't already be found elsewhere in far more peaceful and loving spiritual philosophies.

Fact Number Two:

The core basis of Hebrew mythology is the idea that their God is a jealous God and will condemn anyone who refuses to acknowledge him and adhere to "His Word".

In other words, it's a cult that demands that only its dogma is the "Word of God" and all other spiritual views are false. And it necessarily needs to created a hateful jealous God to enforce this property of this cult.

Fact Number Three:

This cult tries to use Jesus as an 'innocent son' of this egotistical jealous God. They pretend that the only way to this jealous God is through Jesus, and they pretend that Jesus himself is not this jealous God, but merely the only means to get to him. So they try to play down this unrighteous attribute of jealousy in Jesus himself.

Yet at the very same time they hypocritically proclaim that Jesus is this God for all intents and purposes.

Fact Number Four:

Being a good person is not enough!

It's not about morals at all. It's about joining and supporting this CULT and proclaiming that Jesus is LORD OF ALL.

And what does that really amount to?

It truly amounts to nothing more than proclaiming that the Hebrew Cult is the "CULT OF ALL". And that all other religious or spiritual philosophies are necessarily false.

It's the most successful cult scam ever created by men. It has absolutely no moral merit of superiority whatsoever. In fact, many people have constantly pointed out the immoralities associated with these cult fables.

Even many Christians themselves would drop this cult like a hot potato if the New Testament and Jesus were removed from it.

In other words, even most Christians do not see the Old Testament fables of God to represent good moral values. If it wasn't for Jesus having stood up against those immoral teachings from a lame-brain God, even many Christians would trash the religion.

The moral values of Christianity actually depend upon Jesus having spit in the face of the previous teachings and directives of the highly immoral God of Abraham.

How ironic is that?

Fact Number Five:

This cult teaches people that no one can have good morals if they don't believe in this cult. In other words, this cult proclaims that if a person hasn't accepted that Jesus is God, then they cannot possible be a highly moral person.

This is necessary to keep this Cult a Cult. Allowing people to be consider to be highly moral people who are in harmony with their creator and to simultaneously not be a member of this Cult, is not permitted.

This is what makes the Cult so hateful. It condemns non-members of the Cult as being obviously 'evil' people who have themselves chosen to be 'evil'. Thus supposedly giving their jealous God the "righteousness" of being extremely mean and cruel to such people. After all, it was their very own choice to be 'evil' in the first place. So they have no one to blame but themselves for not joining and supporting the Cult.

This demand that everyone must join this Cult lest they be considered as having "Turned against God" is precisely the only thing that this hateful Hebrew Cult can lay claim to in terms of uniqueness.

In terms of actual morality or wisdom, it has absolutely [u]nothing unique[/] to offer. On the contrary higher moral values can actually be found elsewhere.

The only thing this Cult has that is unique is the Cult mentality that if you refuse to join the Cult you have "condemned yourself" and this gives their hateful jealous God the right to be 'righteous' in condemning you, because it was ultimately your choice, for refusing to join and support the Cult.

Christianity is the ultimate hate Cult spreading hatred in the name of a jealous God toward anyone who refuses to join and support the Cult.

No genuinely wise all-perfect supreme infinitely intelligent being could possibly have created such a disgusting religion.

There can be no other conclusion. This religious cult was the produce of ancient Hebrew male-chauvinistic pigs (not unlike the modern day Taliban actually)

It's as far from being 'divine' as a religion can be.

(February 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Fact Number One:

In terms of moral values, there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that cannot also be found in the teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and many other non-Hebrew teachings.

In terms of moral values, Jesus did not bring anything new to the world. Other than to renounce the immoral behaviors that were actually taught by the Torah or Old Testament.

So this religion has nothing to offer the world that can't already be found elsewhere in far more peaceful and loving spiritual philosophies.

Fact Number Two:

The core basis of Hebrew mythology is the idea that their God is a jealous God and will condemn anyone who refuses to acknowledge him and adhere to "His Word".

In other words, it's a cult that demands that only its dogma is the "Word of God" and all other spiritual views are false. And it necessarily needs to created a hateful jealous God to enforce this property of this cult.

Fact Number Three:

This cult tries to use Jesus as an 'innocent son' of this egotistical jealous God. They pretend that the only way to this jealous God is through Jesus, and they pretend that Jesus himself is not this jealous God, but merely the only means to get to him. So they try to play down this unrighteous attribute of jealousy in Jesus himself.

Yet at the very same time they hypocritically proclaim that Jesus is this God for all intents and purposes.

Fact Number Four:

Being a good person is not enough!

It's not about morals at all. It's about joining and supporting this CULT and proclaiming that Jesus is LORD OF ALL.

And what does that really amount to?

It truly amounts to nothing more than proclaiming that the Hebrew Cult is the "CULT OF ALL". And that all other religious or spiritual philosophies are necessarily false.

It's the most successful cult scam ever created by men. It has absolutely no moral merit of superiority whatsoever. In fact, many people have constantly pointed out the immoralities associated with these cult fables.

Even many Christians themselves would drop this cult like a hot potato if the New Testament and Jesus were removed from it.

In other words, even most Christians do not see the Old Testament fables of God to represent good moral values. If it wasn't for Jesus having stood up against those immoral teachings from a lame-brain God, even many Christians would trash the religion.

The moral values of Christianity actually depend upon Jesus having spit in the face of the previous teachings and directives of the highly immoral God of Abraham.

How ironic is that?

Fact Number Five:

This cult teaches people that no one can have good morals if they don't believe in this cult. In other words, this cult proclaims that if a person hasn't accepted that Jesus is God, then they cannot possible be a highly moral person.

This is necessary to keep this Cult a Cult. Allowing people to be consider to be highly moral people who are in harmony with their creator and to simultaneously not be a member of this Cult, is not permitted.

This is what makes the Cult so hateful. It condemns non-members of the Cult as being obviously 'evil' people who have themselves chosen to be 'evil'. Thus supposedly giving their jealous God the "righteousness" of being extremely mean and cruel to such people. After all, it was their very own choice to be 'evil' in the first place. So they have no one to blame but themselves for not joining and supporting the Cult.

This demand that everyone must join this Cult lest they be considered as having "Turned against God" is precisely the only thing that this hateful Hebrew Cult can lay claim to in terms of uniqueness.

In terms of actual morality or wisdom, it has absolutely [u]nothing unique[/] to offer. On the contrary higher moral values can actually be found elsewhere.

The only thing this Cult has that is unique is the Cult mentality that if you refuse to join the Cult you have "condemned yourself" and this gives their hateful jealous God the right to be 'righteous' in condemning you, because it was ultimately your choice, for refusing to join and support the Cult.

Christianity is the ultimate hate Cult spreading hatred in the name of a jealous God toward anyone who refuses to join and support the Cult.

No genuinely wise all-perfect supreme infinitely intelligent being could possibly have created such a disgusting religion.

There can be no other conclusion. This religious cult was the produce of ancient Hebrew male-chauvinistic pigs (not unlike the modern day Taliban actually)

It's as far from being 'divine' as a religion can be.

I am shocked and horrified. There can only be one response to what you just wrote. To this offensive, disgraceful, sacrilegious excuse for a response...



















(This is going to be my last post till my laptops fixed, be honored.)

(February 21, 2012 at 4:31 am)chipan Wrote:

(February 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The God of Abraham never taught anyone to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Maybe not the old testament god but the Golden rule was originally quoted from Jesus. Matthew 7:12

As others have pointed out, the Golden Rule was around long before Jesus was ever born. In fact, the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama taught people to treat others as they would like to be treated. So it easily goes back 500 years before Jesus was born.

And Siddhartha Gautama wasn't the first person to suggest this either.

So it's a fallacy for Christians to think that this idea originated with Jesus. In fact, many people (myself included) believe that the person who gave rise to the Jesus rumors was most likely a Jewish Buddhist. Mainly because the moral teachings that are attributed to this man are very much in line with the moral teachings of Buddhism, specifically the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, which was the most popular form of Buddhism at the time Jesus would have lived.

The teachings attributed to this man called Jesus are also clearly in stark opposition to the teachings of the Torah and the God of Abraham.

In fact Jesus taught that he and the father are one (which is precisely what a Buddhist would teach). And when questioned on this and accused of blaspheme he pointed to the Torah and said to the Pharisees, "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods"?

In other words, Jesus was pointing out that he was not proclaiming to be anything special in stating that he and the father are one. This is clearly true for everyone. That would indeed be the stance of a pantheistic-minded Buddhist.

So not only did Jesus not teach anything new, but he was clearly rejecting the teachings in the Torah, and even referring to it as "your law" when speaking with the Pharisees.

Sure, he tried his best to use their ignorant fables to support his Buddhist views. In that sense he supported the "Torah" (or used the Torah to support his views). But only in that sense.

Jesus was not the demigod son of a hateful jealous God.

He was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who was trying to get people to wise up and behave better than how the ignorant teachings of the Torah had taught them to behave.

So there is actually quite a bit of evidence pointing to the likely truth that the man who sparked the New Testament rumors of Jesus was actually favoring Buddhism and trying to renounce the ignorance and immoral behaviors that had been instilled in people by the Torah.

Jesus taught nothing new, and was probably educated by Mahayana Buddhists himself since his teachings were far more in line with those of Buddhism than they were with Judaism.

Many people don't realize also that many Jews of that time period actually had a quite pantheistic notion of God themselves. This notion of God as being a jealous humanoid in the sky is actually a modern facade created mostly due to Christianity.

Quote:So not only did Jesus not teach anything new, but he was clearly rejecting the teachings in the Torah, and even referring to it as "your law" when speaking with the Pharisees.

There was nothing antithetical to Judaism in Christianity until Saul stuck his oar in;until then, Christianity was a purely Jewish sect. To join one either had to be Jewish or convert to Judaism.



Matthew 5:17

Quote: 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I agree Christianity is a derivative religion with no new ideas.This became more the case with time as more and more iconography,ritual and old gods were absorbed.A graphic example is the Marian cult which replaced worship of say the earth mother

Claiming Buddhism was a major influence on Christianity is bit of a stretch I think. I can see some similarities; EG love your enemy and turn the other cheek are a bit like ahimsa. However,similarities do not infer causal links.

(February 21, 2012 at 9:22 pm)padraic Wrote: Claiming Buddhism was a major influence on Christianity is bit of a stretch I think. I can see some similarities; EG love your enemy and turn the other cheek are a bit like ahimsa. However,similarities do not infer causal links.

I don't believe that Buddhism had a major influence on "Christianity" at all.

In fact, to truly understand what I'm suggesting require a mindset that is totally alien to "Christianity" and Christian thinking.

First off, you need to divide "Christianity" up between the creators of the religion and the followers.

The "Creators" being many different people who had different agendas. Jesus not being one of them.

And the "followers" being people who buy into the claims made by the cannon and its creators.

~~~~

What does the Christian cannon claim? It claims that Jesus was the son of God. It also claims that the scriptures cannot be broken. Therefore it basically claims to be the "divine word of God" that cannot be broken.

Well, if you toss that out and instead view it as nothing more than superstitious rumors. Many things change. The first being that you no longer need to view these rumors as being unbreakable, or even dependable for that matter.

So let's view it in that light and imagine that Jesus was a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

~~~~~

The first thing required there is that you understand something about Mahayana Buddhism and the concept of a Bodhisattva.

Some information about Mahayana Buddhism:

What was it exactly?

Well, to begin with, Buddhism itself had become quite diversified and there were many arguments over what Buddhism stood for or even meant. Mahayana Buddhist means, "The Great Vehicle". And this is important.

What Mahayana Buddhism was attempting to get at is the underlying principles and concepts of Buddhism, without relying upon any specific dogma or indoctrinated beliefs of all these various forms of Buddhism that had become in conflict with each other.

So the main idea was that it doesn't truly matter so much how you think of the supreme deity or mystical essence of life, but rather the more important thing to do is focus on those things that achieve "Nirvana" or "salvation" in the end. So the whole idea is to teach what it takes to reach Nirvana, and not to get lost in trying to demand precisely what Nirvana even means.

This is "The Great Vehicle" (i.e. the Mahayana) that will help everyone achieve the ultimate spiritual goal regardless of how they might think of the divine.

~~~~

So with the above in mind, if Jesus was indeed a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist then he would not be worried about trying to renounce specific beliefs in the divine, but rather he would simply be interested in teaching the actions (or karma) required to achieve the ultimate God of "Nirvana" or entrance into the "Kingdom of God".

So Jesus would not be attempting to renounce Judaism per say. But instead he would simply be trying to teach better "karma" (i.e. better behaviors).

~~~~

Secondly, The concept of a Bodhisattva.

What is a Bodhisattva with respect to Mahayana Buddhism?

Well, it's a person who vows to 'save' as many other people as possible once they themselves have become enlightened. I'm using the term "saved" here, because the basic principle applies. Although in Buddhism it wasn't really thought of as being 'saved'. It was merely thought of as becoming spiritually awakened or being "Born Again".

It was very common among Mahayana Buddhist monks to even refuse to take on students unless they were willing to first vow to become a Bodhisattva. So this principle of becoming a Bodhisattva was deeply entrenched in this form of Buddhism.

A Bodhisattva would basically take on more disciples himself and have them swear to continue to spread the teachings as well. This is clearly the behavior that we see in Jesus with his 12 disciples. Asking them to repeat his teachings to others.

~~~~

Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak right around the time in history when Jesus would have lived. It was also quite successful in converting many of the various sects of Buddhism to become Mahayana Buddhists. So it was not only at it's peak at that time, but that peak would have been profound and quite popular among Buddhism in general in one form or another.

~~~~~

Now let's go back to talking about Jesus in Israel. What did he teach?

Well, even according to the gospels (which are just rumors about him), it's clearly the he taught that he and the father are one.

That's a Mahayana Buddhist concept. Tat t'vam asi, "You are that", (i.e. you are this mysterious spiritual presence that you call "The Father" or "God".

When confronted on this and charged with blaspheme, what does Jesus do?

Well even according to these gospel rumors, Jesus points to the Jewish Torah and shows where even their text proclaims that "Ye are Gods". Thus supporting his views using the beliefs of the culture at hand. That's precisely what a Mahayana Buddhist would do. Remember? It's "The Great Vehicle", the precise beliefs of your dogma are unimportant. All that's important is Right Action, Right Thoughts, and Right Speech (the foundational principles of Buddhism)

So there's no need to try to 'convert' anyone to Buddhism per say. There's nothing to be converted to. You can keep your religious dogma, just pay more attention to your actions, thoughts, and speech.

~~~~

And so what does Jesus do?

Well, he proclaims that he has not come to destroy the Torah, but rather to fulfill the good principles contained within.

As you point out he also speaks that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. But in that very same sermon he goes around renouncing the judging of others, the stoning of sinners to death, and the seeking of revenge, and/or holding grudges.

Clearly he's trying to WORK within the confines of the Torah as best he can, whilst simultaneously attempting to renounce the immoral crap that it teaches.

~~~~

As far as I'm concerned this picture fits perfectly, and Mahayana Buddhism was indeed at it's peak at this time in history so it even fits in that respect.

It's an extremely viable theory. I personally convinced that this is precisely what sparked the Jesus rumors.

~~~~~~

So what happens?

Jesus clearly has a run-in with the religious authorities. He publicly calls them hypocrites and renounces their teachings. Jesus is a genius and outsmarts that stupid Pharisees every time. Tossing their own Torah in their face at every drop of the hat.

They finally get pissed and incite a mob to have him crucified for on charges of blaspheme.

~~~~~

That event gives rise to much rumors about this man. Who was this man named Jesus? What was he trying to say? Etc. etc.

Well, there were many different views on that. In fact, in the early days there were huge disagreements over who Jesus might have been or what he stood for.

Obviously some rumors emerged that he might have been the promised messiah spoken of in the Torah. Those rumors started and quickly showed promise of being believed by many people.

So religious authorities (or people who were looking to become religious authorities) jumped on these rumors and expounded upon them creating the foundation for what has become the New Testament "Gospels".

As these rumors became more organized and well-established "Christianity was born" and as a religion it took up swords and proclaimed its rumors to be the "Gospel Truth". And anyone who refuses to accept these rumors as the "Gospel Truth" will face grave accusations at swordpoint.

~~~~

The rest is history.

~~~~

(February 21, 2012 at 9:22 pm)padraic Wrote: However,similarities do not infer causal links.

Well, IMHO, there's a lot more here than mere similarities. And although I can't point to any specific causal links, I feel that there's enough historical evidence that Mahayana Buddhism could have easily played a role in these rumors to make a compelling case for it, at least as being a rational explanation of how these rumors got started.

You posted:

Quote:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Keep in mind that these words are not the writings of Jesus. These are hearsay rumors about what he might have said.

Moreover these are hearsay rumors written by authors who clearly have a biased agenda to support a particular rumor (i.e. the rumor that Jesus is the messiah)

For me, I think Jesus may have taught things along these lines. In other words, he was teaching the principles of Mahayana Buddhism (Right actions, right thoughts, right speech), etc. But the people who wrote down his supposed 'quotes' worded them from their own point of view (i.e. from the point of view that Jesus was the son of the God of Abraham and was preaching from that perspective).

Once you recognize that these quotes being attributed to Jesus are not his words at all, but rather thy are nothing more than hearsay rumors by clearly biased authors, there's plenty of room to recognize the bigger picture.

~~~~

Besides, the messiah claim can't be true anyway because the Torah makes it clear that the messiah would be handed the throne of King David by God himself and become the King of the Jews.

So those rumors were clearly false anyway since that never happened.

~~~~

Jesus as a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist actually makes SENSE.

Jesus as the only begotten Son of a God who will condemn people for merely not believing in him makes absolutely NO SENSE.

So if I had to chose between these two scenarios I would choose to believe that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

It just makes far more sense to me personally.

I think it's something worthy of consideration.

Quote "Ok sorry I missed this one that was addressed to me it's hard to see when many conversations are going on at once. Anyways you say every Bit of evidence in every field is evidence of an old earth. Since this is an absolute statement it's easy to prove wrong. The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false. I know you will say this is not what you meant but that should teach you to be careful with absolutes. As for what you ask me for (evidence for a young earth), I can give an example. I'm sure you know all about carbon dating and all that and how carbon 14 is made in the atmosphere. It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant. The problem however is that we have not reached equalibrium yet. The amound of carbon 14 is increasing. This fact not only proves a young earth, but it it could explain how measurements of objects thousands of years old could be inaccurate. I have presented my evidence and I also expect you to do the same rather than saying "it's everywhere."

Assuming what you say about carbon-14 is correct (which believe me it isn't), how can you cite one example as proof of your claims while ignoring the dozens of other examples which show you to be the ignorant fool you really are?

It has been long established that the Earth is billions of years old and the universe even older, the fact you actually believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and the young earth theory just shows what an ignorant, uneducated and closed minded individual you are. I have the utmost pity for you.