Did Jesus' disciples need proof of Jesus' word?

[VitalOne]

Buddha = Christ.

It is a seed in all of us, but not all seeds become trees.

Jesus was reffering to the Christ/Buddha inside us, not to the Jesus inside us, that doesn´t make any sense, Jesus died 2000 years ago.

Jesus doesn´t mention Gautama, but this doesn´t change the fact that they reached a similar level of enlightment, and their teachings were the same. Although currently, Gautama´s teachings are a little less changed than those of Jesus.

In other words, Jesus became Buddha in his time, and Buddha became Christ in is time.
Jesus and Gautama are dead, long ago. But yes, Chris/Buddha is the way, the truth, and the life.

I don't really think Buddha = Christ, I think they both achieved the same status...so they were equal in status but still different...

Jesus's teachings are changed because he appeared among the ignorant, the lowest of all people, as Jesus called them the "generation of vipers", where as Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu appeared in relatively good ages, a lot better than the people Jesus appeared to (the generation of vipers)

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I don't really think Buddha = Christ, I think they both achieved the same status...so they were equal in status but still different...

Jesus's teachings are changed because he appeared among the ignorant, the lowest of all people, as Jesus called them the "generation of vipers", where as Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu appeared in relatively good ages, a lot better than the people Jesus appeared to (the generation of vipers)

Yes you are right.

The thing is, I thing you are reffering that Jesus != Gautama, I´m not saying that. But the oriental concept of Buddha is what we call Christ. It is the same thing, from different origins.
By no means I´m saying Jesus = Gautama.

Jesus achieved the level of a Buddha, the same as Gautama achieved the level of Christ.

 

[Oli]

Well, I don´t know, as you said, there is no proof, I cannot possibly be certain. But those anonymous men had some of the wisest word I´ve ever heard. The "Tao Te Ching" is incredible, I recommend it to everyone, the Psalms attributed to Asaph are very intriguing and full of mystery.
So why should I discredit their words for their anonymity?
The person that say things make no difference to me, if I find the words are helpfull, then I read them.

My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought you were indicating that wise men had lived who remained anonymous and there was no evidence of their existence. Which is, you'll admit a strange proposition to use. I understand and agree with you.
But you're still using others' words - find your own, seriously. It's YOUR truth you're looking for.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The trouble is, that same 'divine' 'englightenment' is probably the same thing that many atheists feel. Just because a person feels this doesn't mean it will move them to religion... for many it moves them to science and skepticism. Dawkins covered this at the very beginning of his book when he describes how he and his childhood priest experienced the exact same emotion, and it moved the priest to religion, and dawkins to science.

The problem with religious folk is that they claim to be experiencing things that they consider makes them special in some way compared to the atheist... Hence the prevailing notion that atheists are living with something important missing from their lives.

I know Dennett has tried to explain away the so called "God shaped hole" as archaic unmet childhood longings etc. Personally I think that's to psycho-pathologise a natural human spiritual longing.

However, I think 'enlightenment' or 'Bodhi' or 'mystical rapture' that buddhists, yogis, mystics etc. speak of is more than just the transient wonder that Dawkins describes in Ch1 of 'The God Delusion.' Quote from Wikipedia:

Bodhi in Buddhism specifically means the awakening experience attained by Gautama Buddha and his accomplished disciples and refers to the unique consciousness of a fully liberated yogi. Such a one even while sleeping is fully conscious which is the nature of abiding in the deathless. Bodhi is sometimes described as complete and perfect sanity, or awareness of the true nature of the universe. [...] This word conveys the insight and understanding (wisdom) possessed by a Buddha and is similarly used in Christian mysticism to convey the saint's condition of being lit by a higher power - the merging of the human and the divine in theosis.

I think what Dawkins does show is that two people can have a very similar experience, and respond in very different ways. Obviously he thinks his way was "better". :shrug:

 

[kerux]

And would you care to know the significance of Jesus in KJV of the Bible?

yes the word jesus has a history, people have been using it for two thousand year, but that does not make the recipient of the name anymore real than winnie the pooh. if they existed, they may have been, there title and there names are just words, they have no more validity then winnie the pooh.what objective evidence, care to elaborate. evading what! care to elaborate.wrong, only the author/storyteller said that, the words were just attributed to a character in that book. that they might have done, with one big difference they existed, they are not mere character's in a book.

And would you care to know the significance of Jesus in KJV of the Bible?

Specifically, in the Gospel, if you've read, the intention was this:

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:20-21

That's it. You are the objective evidence, inasmuch as you are digging up a record twp thousand years ago... How come? Why not take up winnie the pooh instead? You're evading the fact the grandeaur that was Rome. Try if you may happen to borrow old papyri down there, to read.

 

[geeser]

So, if you don't accept the real (objective) evidence,

what objective evidence, care to elaborate.

then you're evading, geeser.

evading what! care to elaborate.

And would you care to know the significance of Jesus in KJV of the Bible?

lol, go ahead, but it is pointless, you are afterall reciting from a fictional book/collection of fictional books, so your coming from a subjective basis, how are your going to produce objective evidence from that.

Specifically, in the Gospel, if you've read, the intention was this:
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:20-21

totally pointless, see above reply.

That's it. You are the objective evidence, inasmuch as you are digging up a record two thousand years ago...

lol, what!

How come? Why not take up winnie the pooh instead?

!

You're evading the fact the grandeaur that was Rome.

no, I'm stating the jesus and the disciples are fictional, Rome is factual, huge difference.

Try if you may happen to borrow old papyri down there, to read.

!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

And would you care to know the significance of Jesus in KJV of the Bible?

Specifically, in the Gospel, if you've read, the intention was this:

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:20-21

That's it. You are the objective evidence, inasmuch as you are digging up a record twp thousand years ago... How come? Why not take up winnie the pooh instead? You're evading the fact the grandeaur that was Rome. Try if you may happen to borrow old papyri down there, to read.

*************
M*W: 'Sin' is an ancient Egyptian word for the moon which guards the darkness. Therefore, 'sin' is translated as 'darkness' and not doing bad deeds. You people read the bible and interpret it literally word for word, but you have no idea where the words come from and how they should be interpreted correctly.

This is only one little word that has been misinterpreted. What about the accuracy of rest of the bible? Sounds pretty obvious to be a crock.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

*************
M*W: 'Sin' is an ancient Egyptian word for the moon which guards the darkness. Therefore, 'sin' is translated as 'darkness' and not doing bad deeds. You people read the bible and interpret it literally word for word, but you have no idea where the words come from and how they should be interpreted correctly.

This is only one little word that has been misinterpreted. What about the accuracy of rest of the bible? Sounds pretty obvious to be a crock.

Actually, "sin" was the name of the Babylonian "moon God". The English word sin derives from Old English "synn.", recorded in use as early as the 9th century. The Greek word "hamartia" is usually translated as sin in the New Testament; it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target" which was also used in Old English archery.

The Spanish word "Pecado", comes from the latin "peccātum", and it meant the voluntary transgression of a precept known as "good".

Before Greek and Aramaic, the concept used to mean "Forget", forgetting that something is present.

Besides the obvious multiple origins, they all had something to do with "miss the point".

For me, a sin is something that goes against nature. If we could only understand that our purpose in this life is to convert darkness into light, then you would understand that a sin, is something that goes against that precept. This concept cannot be taken from the Bible or the Upanishads, this concept is only intrisic on your own self. What you feel is bad you is a sin, and what you feel that makes you grow as a person is good.
This is different from person to person, so this is the main aspect in not judging others, not judging at all... This is a common teaching in Buddhism and Christianity. Although not followed by most.

The key factor in personal growth, is learn from past mistakes, don´t do things that make you feel bad, because that is a sin. And guilt is the most damaging feeling, because anything you already did can´t be changed, and the best you can do is learn from that situation and move on...

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Actually, "sin" was the name of the Babylonian "moon God".

*************
M*W: I stand corrected. I'm so used to typing 'Egyptian,' my fingers got away with me. It is a Babylonian word.

 

[kerux]

lol, go ahead, but it is pointless, you are afterall reciting from a fictional book/collection of fictional books, so your coming from a subjective basis, how are your going to produce objective evidence from that.totally pointless, see above reply. lol, what!!no, I'm stating the jesus and the disciples are fictional, Rome is factual, huge difference. !

Hello! Are you mindless or mindful? You said "Rome is factual"?

IS ROMA FACTUAL?

 

[kerux]

sIN

*************
M*W: 'Sin' is an ancient Egyptian word for the moon which guards the darkness. Therefore, 'sin' is translated as 'darkness' and not doing bad deeds. You people read the bible and interpret it literally word for word, but you have no idea where the words come from and how they should be interpreted correctly.

This is only one little word that has been misinterpreted. What about the accuracy of rest of the bible? Sounds pretty obvious to be a crock.

According to etymology? Sin is a word for the "moon"...? So why concluded that sin is translated as "darkness" when it stands for "moon" that guards the darkness?

 

[geeser]

Hello! Are you mindless or mindful?

only mindful of the facts.
I'd need to be you to be mindless.

You said "Rome is factual"?

does rome exist, does it have history, is it pertaining to facts, (Ie the caesers, the collisium,) is it not concerning facts does it not have factual accuracy.
what is your point.

IS ROMA FACTUAL?

well the italians certainly think so. unless like pompei it no longer exists.