Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

I was referring to Jesus' own rendition of the first two commandments in Matthew 22:38-40. " You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.” Yes, it's true, if you think about it. These are the two most important principles I live my life by--as profound as anything anyone has ever said. (Yes, I know. Rabbi Hillel said them first, but they've become part of the Christian moral package, and as we've been saying, truth is truth, no matter who said them. What did the Buddha say on the subject?

If you're not interested in what scriptures say, how then could you make the claim that Buddhism, minus the doctrinal overlay, is the last word on moral insight?

 

Yeah, exactly.... Saying something is so does not make it so....
I would say prove it to anyone not respecting that I do not believe something. It is not up to me to disprove anything, I never made it up, why would it be my burden to disprove?

 

Doesn't Mr. Writer believe in just one ridiculous thing ? - that to believe in more than one ridiculous thing shall
be the ruination of existence .

Anyway , don't we wish Jesus had left us his personal notebook ? And damn , why couldn't the Ancient Aliens
have left us an artifact ? It is permitted to cry about this and that and don't know why .

Jesus exists now , says the mystic Christian shaman , because He touched me . (one more tear)

 

If you mean insight into Christ's alleged visit to India, I can only say that several scholars think there is no credible evidence that Jesus traveled to India or anywhere else outside of Palestine. (Ehrman,Forged ,2011; Borg in Dunn, The Historical Jesus, 2005; Crossan, Who is Jesus (1999); Fredrekcson, From Jesus to Christ.That's not to say he didn't, since there was quite a gap between childhood and the beginning of his ministry as an adult that has never been accounted for. The idea that Jesus did go to India during that period seems to have originated from two sources: Nicholas Notovich's Life of Saint Issa and Levi Dowling's The Aquarian Gospel. Notovich admitted that he fabricated his story and Dowling's claim to have channeled his evidence discredits it outside mystical circles. But it's possible that Buddhist beliefs reached Palestine. There's just no hard evidence of it. I happen to agree, though, with Skip's claims about the corruption of Jesus' teachings after His death. I think Christianity and Buddhism are compatible, and next to Christianity, Buddhism is the world religion that I've been most influenced by.

 

For what it's worth, the three synoptic gospels agree on the darkness--the first being the gospel of Mark which Matthew and Luke both read. The Gospel of John, however, says nothing about it. I still think it could be metaphorical, especially since the three synoptic writers also mention that the curtain in the Temple was torn in two, symbolizing removal of the barrier between God and the people. The Book of Amos 5:20 says: "Will not the day of the LORD be darkness instead of light, Even gloom with no brightness in it?" See also Isaiah 8;22; 13:10; Zephaniah 1:15; Joel 2:2. This is standard apocalyptic prophecy that the synoptic writers may be drawing on to indicate that the prophecies are being fulfilled. (Or maybe they were being fulfilled).

 

1) Salvation depends on understanding and accepting the gift of Christ

2) Understanding the gift of christ requires understanding the bible and the evidence presented therein of christs's divinity

3) the evidence in the bible is disagreed upon by different christian sects

4) the evidence is often of a difficult literary nature; that is, it may require nuanced understanding of metaphor and other literary devices

5) god creates people with intellectual disabilities who cannot understand such literary devices

6) god creates people who cannot understand the evidence in the bible, and therefore cannot accept the gift of christ

7) god creates people who cannot be saved

Where am I wrong in this chain of thinking?

 

Your disagreement with Christianity still has nothing to do with whether Jesus actually existed or not.

 

It's all wrong. First of all, what is it supposed to be? I've just finished a book Truth and Tolerance by Cardinal Ratzinger, formerly Pope Benedict VI, and formerly head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the Inquisition. He's generally thought of as representing the conservative viewpoint in the Catholic Church, but he'd take issue with your entire thesis. According to Ratzinger, God doesn't create anyone who can't be saved. Devout Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, etc., can all be saved if they are sincere and conscientious in their belief. He maintains that Christ works through all religions in guiding people toward Him. Of course, good non-Christians might find it offensive to hear that they're really Christians at heart, but that's the official doctrine. Pope Francis goes further in seeming to extend the same promise of salvation to sincere atheists and agnostics who seek the truth and mean to do good. Of course, that's just the Catholic view, but they are the largest body of Christians worldwide, and Progressive and many mainline Protestants share the same view. Carlton Pearson, omce a prominent Evangelical preacher, argues for universalism--the idea that everybody goes to Heaven. To be sure, he was declared a heretic by fundamentalists, but he is still writing and influential. That leaves fundamentalist Christians, who probably would ascribe to everything on your list. But these are misguided biblidolators who are saved by their invincible ignorance. There's hope for you, too.

 

To be clear, I was responding to a post asking why Christopher Hitchens didn't say anything bad about Byddhism. The examples I gave were from his book, God Is Not Great, chp.14. Hitchens has a jaundiced view of all religion, so I'm not really endorsing his opinions. But on the specific issues you raise, there are other writers who back him up. Yes, Shinto contributed heavily to Japanese militarism, but so did Buddhism (specifically Zen). At least that 's the thesis of Brian Victoria in Zen at War and Zen War Stories. It is also the view of Ichikawa Hakugen, a Buddhist monk who apologizes for his role in promoting it in The War Responsibility of Buddhists.

You may be right about Sri Lanka, but S.J. Tambiah disagrees in his book Buddhism Betrayed: Religion, Politics,and Violence. And Buddhist inspired violence there seems to be continuing, against Hindus, Muslims, and Christians . ; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-02/sri-lankan-muslim-legislators-buddhist-hate-crimes/5426726
http://www.speroforum.com/a/QTEZYVAEGH28/73369-Sri-Lanka-Violent-dispossession-of-Christian-churches-by-Buddhists#.Vi6FAisodII
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/sri-lankas-violent-buddhists.html?_r=0
http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2014/07/01/why-are-buddhist-monks-promoting-violence-in-sri-lanka/

As for Tibet, Michel Parenti charges economic exploitation and brutalities, like mutilations, blindings, and even sexual abuse by Buddhist Lamas back in the day. http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html We might add the occasionally violent clashes between Red Hat and Yellow Hat Buddhist sects. See Also Colin Gardner, "The Myth of Tibet. How a Dictatorial Regime of Monks Is Romantically Transfigured. http://www.eunacom.net/DalaiLama_E.htm We could add the violence perpetrated by Buddhist monks against Muslims in Burma.http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306 To his credit, The Dali Lama has urged Buddhists i Sri Lanka and Burma to cut it out, Acknowldging that at least he thinks its happening.http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/asia/dalai-lama-muslim-violence/index.html Maybe it's all propaganda. Maybe we could say the same about Hitchens treatment of Christians. But, alas, it seems that evil can happen despite the best intentions of the Buddha and Jesus. BTW, it seems a bit of a stretch to characterize the conflict between western nations and certain Muslims countries as a religious war. The western Europeans are highly secular, not religious, and the Bush administration was guided by the neo-cons who included many secular Jews and were mainly governed by secular ideology,, geopolitics and oil.

 

no - he's a testamonial to advertising

 

I think I have made it clear that that is a major issue for me and for the entirety of the world's christians. If you can explain how this is not the case I'm all ears, but lets try and keep the discussion to the topic at hand and not derail it into you trying to psychoanalyze me or critique my rhetoric.

It's a sequence of thoughts which entered my head as I sat down to write down just one example of why I don't understand the christian worldview as explained by many christians. I wrote down the first contradictory situation that came to mind.

Thank you, I actually did not know this was the official position of the catholic church. That is quite a shock to be honest; I had never thought they would say that christ piggybacks into other peoples' religions and gives them a pass. That's quite a socially dangerous claim to be sure, almost as dangerous as the islamic claim that theirs is the last religion.

It's also dangerous from a recruitment standpoint; "Hey guys don't worry, we don't actually need you in our church it turns out, you get into our heaven anyways!" Some very interesting political consequences to this position. The statement "christ works through all religions" is also troubling; Ratz obviously meant "all religions like christianity" or "all religions with a moral orientation like christianity".

Of course then there is the problem of who gives a shit what Ratz says, he's just a bureaucrat for an organization, what does the bible say about this? You know, the document that is the source of everything you really know about christianity and is supposed to be the word of the creator of the universe?

I am really only familiar with the christian view that works are useless; what matters is faith in christ, only through him is salvation possible.

If you really believe that the historical existence of jesus doesn't really matter, that the miracles probably didn't happen, that the bible is not the literal word of god (and maybe even not "inspired"?) and that everybody who's good is saved anyways, that is indeed a startlingly liberal interpretation of christianity, one which strains my ability to understand what it means to be a christian. It seem at its most minimal, one can simply nod one's head sympathetically to the teachings of jesus and be considered "christian"? I've always thought it had a more stringent entry requirement, at least thats how churches in my area speak, and those in debates I've heard over the years as well.

Do you think you're on a path to defining away god bit by bit? Like, fast forward 500 years, will people who think like you think also have by then added the addendum "also it doesn't matter if any of this is false, which it very well might be, because it feels good to believe"? Do you think you are on a path to that kind of frank sincerity?

 

I'll admit I may be one of a kind and certainly a heretic, probably best characterized as a Unitarian Christian (which is possible, since Unitarians also accept pagans and atheists). But I attend fellowship groups from a variety of faiths. I think I'm a Christian in the same "sophisticated" sense you seem to be a Buddhist--the kind C.S. Lewis railed against in his "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" essay. As for "feeling good", I think critically about religion and accept only what seems logically defensive. I think I'v already explained my preference for Jesus' example and teachings. These provide me with a sense of meaning and moral guidance in making my way though the uncertainties of life, and I think they're as true as anything can be on the basis of my judgement. My view of the Bible is similar to that taught in liberal and mainline Christian seminaries: the historical-metaphorical approach. I tend to be a panendeist in my view of God, but I'm always open to revisions on the basis of new information. .

 

You posted a couple of points on why you disagree with Christianity, as if that that's somehow proof that Jesus never existed. It's impossible to trace whether he ever existed, not to mention the countless other figures of various Religions.

Yes, let's try to keep the discussion ON TOPIC, which means not discussing why you agree with Christianity or don't but discussing whether you think he existed or not, which is impossible to prove or disprove anyway. Whether he did or didn't exist, Christianity is separate from Jesus. If he really did exist, and prior to the formation of Christianity (which was formed after he died), then Christianity is completely irrelevant and not even a manifestation in his life. He was a Jew, in fact.

And I'm pretty sure that most Buddhists, including yourself, want and think that The Buddha existed. How is this any different? If he turned out to not have been real, I bet a lot of people would drop out of Buddhism as well. You have claimed that you don't care, because you're a "sophisticated Buddhist", and yet you do think he existed. Just a coincidence? No.

 

If I found out that the buddha never existed then it would change nothing about buddhism for me, because it is not based on the existence of a person, unlike christianity.

It is based on the teachings. Whether they were taught by Gautama Buddha, or Jerry Seinfeld, doesn't matter to me, because they work.

I don't worship buddha.

to make things easier, I will also assume that Siddhartha Guatama did not exist, and is a mythicized figure.

The implications this has for my understanding of buddhism and those of many who understand buddhism is basically zero.

For others it is a fatal blow to their worldview, because they worship the man, even though he said "don't worship me", but you know how people can get.

While it may be impossible to conclussively prove whether or not jesus existed, we can ask for reasonable standards of evidence, especially for such an important figure, and one who was apparently the son of god, divine, performed miracles, caused the dead to rise, etc. Lacking such historical evidence simply doesn't bode well for a figure who is supposed to have been such an important man (god). Add also the straightforward interpretation of the bible in which eternal salvation lies only through believing in jesus, and this presents a problem, because if there never was a jesus, then there is no man-god in whom to trust as per the bible, and 2 billion people are structuring their lives around a mistake at best.

 

And what if he did exist afterall?

Well, Buddhism is based on the existence of a person and his supposed words. You would really still follow it no matter who said it? Buddhism itself hardly even has to do with The Buddha's main message anyway. They missed the point just as much as Christians missed the point of what Christ was actually trying to convey.

 

Who, Jesus? You mean what if we could prove that he did exist, and that he really was the son of god? Then we have an even bigger problem; best case scenario, about FIVE billion people are wrong in that case! And they aren't just wasting their lives on a mistake, they could potentially be dooming themselves to an eternity of darkness or hellfire, depending on who you ask. I mean its potentially even worse than that, depending on just what kind of jesus it is that really exists, what moods hes in etc. Worst case scenario maybe only one christian sect really "got it" and has the entry requirements for eternity, and we are living in a celestial dictatorship with a most capricious and difficult god. Imagine if all along the Calvinists were right, or something like that. That's a pretty bleak universe.

Considering I've never met the buddha and can't prove he exists, yeah, it doesn't really matter to me if he did or not. I don't see the relevance. It's not like I have an emotional attachment to him or it matters just who exactly taught these things. Imagine we learned that Buddha did exist, but he was a plagiarist, really it was one of his lovers or followers or maids or something who was really the author of the original buddhism; all this would change is the history books for me. buddhism is an idea, not a person.

The people who you are saying have missed the point would say that you have missed the point, and they can point to as much scripture as you can. It's hard to talk about a collective "they" as well, given the staggering multiplicity of views within christianity and buddhism. There are some truly weird offshoots that seem weird to us but are home and comfy for their adherents who would view a more liberal understanding as completely in error.