Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

We don't really know what he said, assuming he existed, any more than we know what JC supposedly said.Unless that is, we trust the scriptures. The Pali scriptures were written long after the death of Gautama.

 

I feel that just as with Zen koans, cryptic Alchemical maxims, passages from the Tao Te Ching, etc., that Christs' words were highly misunderstood not only in his own time, but 2000+ years later, and that trying to interpret these various passages via the intellectual or logical plane is going to miss the point. He served as a disruptor of the order, and spoke from a place where people are all the same, rather than speaking from a place of division. Really more of a Revolutionary than some divine God, but even Jim Morrison became referred to as The Messiah. Jesus would try to chaotically tear down walls of division (same with Morrison, actually)., which is what got him in so much trouble. He got put on a pedestal by the Western mind, but the authentic essence remains.

It really is silly to even debate whether he or any other religious figure existed or not. What matters is the timeless inspiration, revelation, or whatever else that any religion, including buddhism, can do for you. Religion and religiousness will never disappear, so might as well celebrate the diversity.

 

I had to quote this...granted its from another thread...but still....it seemed serious enough in the context. Who'd think such a verbose thinking person could state this!? (not I) and gosh, there aren't even pages and pages AND PAGES of on and on quotes, etc for that other thread. WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? lol

I surely hope this was tongue in cheek....seeing as how faith is not accepted for this thread.

AND it apparently isn't enough that there are writings outside of the bible that mention Jesus.

Perhaps if they had cameras or video back then? No...they would have been doctored, no doubt.

 

of an existence which strives towards understanding of say, the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

Which were based on The Buddha's existence, Awakening, and Enlightenment.

Four Noble Truths

1. The Truth of Dukkha is that all conditional phenomena and experiences are not ultimately satisfying;
2. The Truth of the Origin of Dukkha is that craving for and clinging to what is pleasurable and aversion to what is not pleasurable result in becoming, rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath;
3. The Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha is that putting an end to this craving and clinging also means that rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath can no longer arise;
4. The Truth of the Path Of Liberation from Dukkha is that by following the Noble Eightfold Path—namely, behaving decently, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation—an end can be put to craving, to clinging, to becoming, to rebirth, to dissatisfaction, and to redeath.

First off, do you even believe in Reincarnation? Wouldn't reincarnation imply a soul, or an eternal "someone" that is experiencing reincarnation? Wouldn't this also imply a continuation of Consciousness after death and before birth?

And how is there Scientific evidence for say, #3? How do we know or have evidence that if you put an end to craving and clinging that that also means that rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath can no longer arise? How does this play in to your views?

And how is any of this much different than The Bible? These 4 Noble Truths are basically saying that if you are a good person, do good deeds, etc. that you won't create a negative and repetitive karma in your future.

Isn't that pretty similar to the notion that if you are a good person, do good deeds, etc. you won't go to Hell? Wouldn't the endless and eternal repetition of suffering out of ignorance constitute for a hellish state?

 

Science says they've found the "God gene" in DNA....those that have it believe in God, those that don't have it are atheists. So if there is a God, then he made atheists to be atheists. And he made those born in Islam to be Muslims, and those born in Tebet to be Buddhists, and those born in India to be Hindu, and here in America you get born into the religion of your parents....some think it out...most don't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0

 

Did you read the article?
it says nothing whatsoever about finding an actual gene responsible for religious behavior, nor does it make any mention of such a gene lacking in an atheist.
All it postulates is that religious behavior could be an evolutionary development that helped humans form cohesive societal groups.


maybe you read a different article and linked the wrong one?

 

Getting way off topic here, but I've never quite been able to get a clear idea of whether or not Buddhists believe in a soul.

I'm pretty sure from past threads that Mr. Writer doesn't believe in it, but I wonder about Buddhists in general. Some sources say that Buddha taught that the Atman or soul is illusory. That being so, I've always found the Buddhist version of reincarnation a bit difficult to comprehend. Unless it's an illusion that reincarnates - which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Some say it's only an allegory - that death and rebirth take place continuously within the bounds of this one human life span. I don't find that very satisfactory, as it leaves big questions unanswered, which could be answered if you think reincarnation actually occurs, such as the inequalities we see in life. The fact that all people are not 'created equal'.

I think it's also hard for Christians too to answer that point satisfactorily.

 

That may be worthy of an interesting thread all to it's own, with that being the topic of focus being that, perhaps in the general Philosophy section or Buddhism section.

 

OK - another thread sometime.

 

I disagree. "And there is no God separate from individual souls." Just before that, you said they have no souls. And I've talked to buddhists that say, that when a person dies, their "soul" goes into another baby just born. The purpose of reincarnation is to learn the lessons not learned in the previous life, and to pay off the karma of that life. The Dali Lama is in his twelveth incarnation.

According to Buddhist belief, the current Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of a past lama who decided to be reborn again to continue his important work, instead of moving on from the wheel of life. A person who decides to be continually reborn is known as tulku.
Buddhists believe that the first tulku in this reincarnation was Gedun Drub, who lived from 1391-1474 and the second was Gendun Gyatso.
However, the name Dalai Lama, meaning Ocean of Wisdom, was not conferred until the third reincarnation in the form of Sonam Gyatso in 1578.
The current Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/people/dalailama_1.shtml

Jesus spoke of reincarnation....

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)

 

I don't see why we have to be so strict about "staying on topic"...All these questions and answers stem from a singular root, so there's no harm in delving into different subjects.

As far as Buddhism and Reincarnation, it's a split between which branch of Buddhism you are all about. That doesn't sound ANYTHING like Christianity to me

And yeah, MeAgain, you said there is no Soul, and then right after said there is no God separate from individual Souls.

 

I'm glad you couldn't tell if I was being serious or not. I'm often tempted to present myself as a completely contradictory person. Sometimes I can't resist.

But no, I don't really think Thor existed. It would be funny if I'd just spent hours naysaying the existence of Jesus Christ and felt that it was okay to accept Thor on faith is all.

I'm interested to hear your own philosophy, Lynnbrown. You seem very attached to the idea that Jesus existed, but I wonder why. Is it because you were brought up that way, or just because you've felt a kinship with Jesus for a long time? Would you be physically okay if Jesus didn't exist? By which I mean could you take a step back, have a cup of coffee maybe, and recompose yourself after you found out? Or would you go completely insane? I am curious. (I know if you answer this will be off-topic, but fuck these guys, right.) J/K!

 

What's the difference?

 

Do You Think The Buddha Ever Really Existed? thread http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/471919-do-you-think-the-buddha-ever-really-existed/

 

Ok...you made me laugh!

I honestly answered how I felt way back pages ago. Yes, I was brought up in the church; but, I haven't just blindly followed everything I was taught I was "supposed" to believe. There was a time (years) I went through questioning and doubt, and yet I found myself back as a believer, a die hard believer at that.

I still don't believe like many (most) of the people in my area do. I guess you would say I have my own interpretation(s) of the bible. Unlike so many people around here, I'm not dependent on someone else telling me what such and such means or how I should feel and believe. That being said, I feel and believe like I do because of a number of personal experiences. I'll just go ahead and say it - supernatural experiences I had after praying and answers I have had to prayer. So I don't just believe based on faith.

Of course there are people that will scoff and try to explain my different experiences as not being "God sent". Several of the "events" have no logical, scientific explanation. Some of the things I've had happen, seen happen could be said to "just be a coincedence". My late husband was witness to one of these "happenings" and he never ceased to remember and talk about it. He wasn't an atheist but he also wasn't a full-fledged believer...until then. He knew there was absolutely no explanation other than God did it, and I assure you that didn't come easy to him.

We are speaking of Jesus here in this thread I realize; but in my mind the 2 (God and Jesus) are inseparable, as is the Holy Spirit inseparable from God and Jesus.

You ask if I were to find out there wasn't a Jesus...I would be alright...but I will always believe there is a higher power, a Master Designer.

 

The term "God gene" is a catchy expression cooked up by molecular geneticist Dean Hamer (or his publisher) to describe a link between variations in the VMAT2 gene related to mood-altering monamine levels and openness to spiritual experiences, which could include God but also environmentalism or any feelings of self-transcedence. It's doubtful that there is a specific god gene, but it's likely that humans are disposed to pattern-seeking, agency attributing cognitive behaviors that make it easy to learn religion or other spiritual ideas. The particular content of the beliefs is shaped by whatever culture you're born into: Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, etc. While I don't think atheists are necessarily part of God's plan, from an evolutionary standpoint they may serve a function in adding to the pool of memes (units for carrying cultural ideas) to compete in the process of natural selection.

 

I think it's quite possible that atheism, and the 'age of reason' that led to it, can be seen as a necessary stage in the development of human consciousness and freedom.
A great deal of mediaeval nonsense was swept away by the rise of rationalism and science, along with many false beliefs. I mean things like the flat earth, age of the earth, the divine right of kings etc.
My concern is that they threw the baby out with the bath water.

The plus side for spiritual seekers nowadays is that people have much more choice, and despite the efforts of fundamentalists, a new kind of spirituality becomes possible. One that accepts the findings of science and isn't tied to dogma in the way people were in the middle ages. Also, whilst I agree that in past times people were tied to whatever religion they happened to be born into, that is no longer the case. One is free to look into various forms of religion and spirituality and hopefully find the path that is suitable for the particular individual.

As we know, there are different conceptions of the divine or God. Some come with an awful lot of baggage attached. Cosmologies which can't stand in the light of science for instance.
Clearly, we have made some progress since the 17th c. And I doubt many people would really want to return to religion as it existed prior to that era with it's erroneous beliefs, persecutions and rigid social hierarchy.

Personally, I have big reservations about a so called 'god gene'. But if it does exist, there is once again a question as to why some would have it and not others - unless of course we believe that it's all pure chance.