It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jesus was a Buddhist?
page: 5share:
reply to post by WhoKnows100
Nope.
Jesus was a man with a good message; he was a mystic, and had studied with the Eastern yogis and gurus while he was 'away'.
You don't know what "version" is true or false. You don't. And that is a FACT. You can't 'know'. None of us 'know'.
What you have done is created a version ofJesus that does not exist, a version that looks and sounds no different to the man of today. Is it any wonder that this world, as in the days in Judea, that the crowds want the murderer, insurrectionist and robber released instead of the Son of God? Your version is entirely false, from head to toe.
Nope.
Jesus was a man with a good message; he was a mystic, and had studied with the Eastern yogis and gurus while he was 'away'.
You don't know what "version" is true or false. You don't. And that is a FACT. You can't 'know'. None of us 'know'.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
The quote from Edmund Spenser.. in my signature.
Again....which quote? I clicked on the sig link "Did Jesus claim to be God?" It's a 404.
This quote... right above all the links:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information which is proof against all argument and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation." ~ Edmond Spenser
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Right! Condemnation before investigation...is not good.
And just as bad, the other side of the nonextistent codified 'coin' is gullible acceptance, selective hearing, and failure to ASK FOR THE CARFAX...so to speak....
I'm exploring and investigating things. Like how much evidence there is from multiple sources that Jesus lived in the East; and learned there.
And how certain doctrines that are part of today's American "Christianity" became embedded -- deliberately -- into the "faith" much, much later - centuries later after Jesus was gone.
And other doctrines were "rinsed and repeated" borrowed from even earlier times and other mythologies.
And how some evangelists only took bits and pieces of other people's doctrines - found an idea to sell to people - and STOPPED RIGHT THERE! And then started writing 'books' that were not well-investigated and cross-investigated. Using 'interviews' with other people who already agreed with him...and ignoring objections and making outrageous exaggerations and so on and so forth.
see the quote in my sig!
Right! Condemnation before investigation...is not good.
And just as bad, the other side of the nonextistent codified 'coin' is gullible acceptance, selective hearing, and failure to ASK FOR THE CARFAX...so to speak....
I'm exploring and investigating things. Like how much evidence there is from multiple sources that Jesus lived in the East; and learned there.
And how certain doctrines that are part of today's American "Christianity" became embedded -- deliberately -- into the "faith" much, much later - centuries later after Jesus was gone.
And other doctrines were "rinsed and repeated" borrowed from even earlier times and other mythologies.
And how some evangelists only took bits and pieces of other people's doctrines - found an idea to sell to people - and STOPPED RIGHT THERE! And then started writing 'books' that were not well-investigated and cross-investigated. Using 'interviews' with other people who already agreed with him...and ignoring objections and making outrageous exaggerations and so on and so forth.
edit on 6-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
see the quote in my sig!
edit on 6-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Considering Buddha was an atheist and Jesus said He was the Son of God I would venture to say no.
No, Buddha was NOT an atheist. He believed that God - or the Source - was emanent in the world and within us and that it was "inappropriate" and improper to try to have a personal understanding of "God."
No , Buddha proved there's no creator. He teaches us Universe is Cyclic , there are many Earths before us , Many Buddhas before Him , Many times earth has destroyed and Rebirthed , Many Times Universe have "Big Crunch" and "Big Banged" .
He taught us that there are other worlds , There are other intelligent beings , both spiritual and physical , but what creates them is only "Causes and effects".
reply to post by wildtimes
See, we can agree on stuff!
And just as bad, the other side of the nonextistent codified 'coin' is gullible acceptance, selective hearing, and failure to ASK FOR THE CARFAX...so to speak....
See, we can agree on stuff!
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Yep, I know we can....and, like you said once, "sometimes we fight in front of the kids, but, I still respect and care about you!"
Now, since I have looked into Mr Strobel's point of view and methods and beliefs (or at least those he teaches),
will you reciprocate and watch Karen Armstrong speak? Doesn't really matter which of her lectures - there are tons...
I find her to be far above and beyond Mr Strobel in terms of her knowledge and research.
Yep, I know we can....and, like you said once, "sometimes we fight in front of the kids, but, I still respect and care about you!"
Now, since I have looked into Mr Strobel's point of view and methods and beliefs (or at least those he teaches),
will you reciprocate and watch Karen Armstrong speak? Doesn't really matter which of her lectures - there are tons...
I find her to be far above and beyond Mr Strobel in terms of her knowledge and research.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by v3ss0n
Buddha proved a negative?
Yeah, I know! right?
Buddha did not "disprove" anything - he said that the subject was beyond conversation. He did not feel that it was necessary or appropriate to try to "explain" 'God', nor did he feel it was possible to "describe" or "talk to" 'God.'
Therefore, he refused to speak either way about it, believing that doing so DETRACTS FROM the unspeakable overarching concept, and also can lead to immature and unrealistic expectations and beliefs. His focus was on helping mankind reduce suffering while in this life and the lives of the future...
he refused to discuss a 'Supreme Reality' because it was unhealthy and dangerous for a person to try to make that Supreme Reality - which permeates everything - into a simple object or person. It is far bigger than that. The trick is in realizing that any objectification or personification is erroneous and inadequate.
God in Buddhism wikipage. Naturally, this is meant to be a starting point - sources are attached to the text in the link for further investigation.
Early Buddhism
As scholar Surian Yee describes, "the attitude of the Buddha as portrayed in the Nikayas is more anti-speculative than specifically atheistic", although Gautama regarded some aspects of the belief in God as unhealthy.[26]
As Hayes describes it, "In the Nikaya literature, the question of the existence of God is treated primarily from either an epistemological point of view or a moral point of view.
As a problem of epistemology, the question of God's existence amounts to a discussion of whether or not a religious seeker can be certain that there is a greatest good and that therefore his efforts to realize a greatest good will not be a pointless struggle towards an unrealistic goal.
And as a problem in morality, the question amounts to a discussion of whether man himself is ultimately responsible for all the displeasure that he feels or whether there exists a superior being who inflicts displeasure upon man whether he deserves it or not...
the Buddha Gotama is portrayed not as an atheist who claims to be able to prove God's nonexistence, but rather as a skeptic with respect to other teachers' claims to be able to lead their disciples to the highest good."[27]
Citing the Devadaha Sutta ('Majjhima Nikaya 101), Hayes remarks that "while the reader is left to conclude that it is attachment rather than God, actions in past lives, fate, type of birth or efforts in this life that is responsible for our experiences of sorrow, no systematic argument is given in an attempt to disprove the existence of God."[28]
reply to post by wildtimes
I just pointed out previously that i didn't ask you to read the book for Strobel's perspective and expertise, but for the experts he interviewed? Strobel only plays the devil's advocate. I'm pretty sure I said that.
I just pointed out previously that i didn't ask you to read the book for Strobel's perspective and expertise, but for the experts he interviewed? Strobel only plays the devil's advocate. I'm pretty sure I said that.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Yes, you did say that....
but, my investigations after watching him revealed that he was spreading 'claims' of 'scholars' who had no evidence....
and that he talked to some of the 'scholars' who knew something about the leaders of the Jesus Symposium (or whatever it is/was) EDIT: The Jesus Seminar..... but not to ANY of the people who were actually part of it!!
Kinda like me becoming a convert to the Baptist church next door, based solely on what that preacher said and not talking to any of his "microscopic" congregation. (Seriously, Sunday there were 3 cars in the parking lot. Most Sundays there are ZERO.)
That, for me, is a 'no go.'
salesmanship, and lack of objective sources. Fail.
But, Wait! There's more!!
www.bidstrup.com...
Yet another scathing review of Strobel's lack of depth and bent toward sales alone.
but for the experts he interviewed?
Yes, you did say that....
but, my investigations after watching him revealed that he was spreading 'claims' of 'scholars' who had no evidence....
and that he talked to some of the 'scholars' who knew something about the leaders of the Jesus Symposium (or whatever it is/was) EDIT: The Jesus Seminar..... but not to ANY of the people who were actually part of it!!
Kinda like me becoming a convert to the Baptist church next door, based solely on what that preacher said and not talking to any of his "microscopic" congregation. (Seriously, Sunday there were 3 cars in the parking lot. Most Sundays there are ZERO.)
That, for me, is a 'no go.'
The Case Against The Case for Christ
A response to Christian apologetics literature This review and analysis is of the book
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
First Edition paperback, published 1998 (ISBN 0310209307), by Harper-Collins Zandervan
I often get letters from Christian apologists and evangelicals of the fundamentalist stripe. They often challenge me to read some apologetic literature and then decide for myself. I've always challenged them in response, telling them to send me some, saying that I would read it. The apologists almost never respond to that offer. So I was surprised, one day, when a Christian actually did just that - he sent me a copy of the book he was recommending. Well, I'm a man of my word, so I read it. In the process, I decided to write this essay from my notes.
This book consists largely of "interviews" of prominent Christian apologists - no secular scholars of any note, just apologists. Written in a narrative style, designed for easy, laid-back reading that is familiar to readers of apologetic literature, it is intended to build a case that the historical record of the New Testament is accurate and believable. Its case is most powerfully made to those who already accept unquestioningly the authority of the gospels. In this sense, it is really preaching to the choir. For the rest of us, the author tries to get us hooked by demonstrating that authority early on - right in the first part of the book, in fact.
The book is very cleverly crafted. It is often claimed by the proponents of this book that the author wrote it when he was an atheist, and was undergoing the conversion process. This is not true. From a careful reading (see the last two paragraphs at the bottom of page 14), he makes it quite clear that he wrote it as a fully committed Christian, "retracing" his spiritual path an indeterminate period of time after the fact. As such, it is yet another ordinary piece of apologetic axe-grinding.
It has a logical sequence of interviews, ostensibly by a skeptical journalist, yet never once does he interview even a single skeptic, either first-line such as Michael Shermer or Steven Jay Gould, or any of the many more obscure, such as Thomas Mack, Earl Doherty or Dan Barker, any of who could have easily and quickly demolished the points raised by the apologists he so eagerly interviewed.
This is not the product I would expect from someone trying to faithfully recount the details of his conversion, having gone through more than one conversion process myself. Rather, this is precisely the structure that I would expect to see from a "market" book, one written for a specific market by or with a skilled propaganda ghost writer.
For example, each part is prefaced with a captivating story, ostensibly drawn from the journalist-author's "experience," that is designed to underscore the methods the subsequent chapter uses as being valid. It then proceeds to the interview, bringing up each point to reinforce that "experience."
salesmanship, and lack of objective sources. Fail.
But, Wait! There's more!!
I am quite familiar with the ghostwriting process, having been interviewed extensively for a book written by a ghostwriter that eventually became a New York Times best seller. Ironically enough, it was also a religious book - cleverly designed to sell Mormonism by selling its doctrine in the guise of "personal experience." It, too, was a market propaganda fake.
The market Strobel's book was written for, is clear: it is written for the Christian evangelical market. It is really preaching to the choir; it is so blatantly one-sided that I can't imagine any thinking skeptic being taken in by it, and I'm sure that Strobel realized that. But he's not selling the book to skeptics. He's selling it to Christians who either want to reinforce their faith, or think they're going to convince their skeptic friends with it.
www.bidstrup.com...
Yet another scathing review of Strobel's lack of depth and bent toward sales alone.
edit on 6-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
reply to post by wildtimes
Look up the late "Dr. Bruce M. Metzger". Just one name.
He interviewed the greatest experts, scholars, and theologians on the face of the Earth.
Now, stop with the fallacious attacks and either read it, or tell me you have no interest and leave it at that.
I really don't se what you are afraid of, I read skeptic information almost daily. You'll live, I'm certain of it.
Look up the late "Dr. Bruce M. Metzger". Just one name.
He interviewed the greatest experts, scholars, and theologians on the face of the Earth.
Now, stop with the fallacious attacks and either read it, or tell me you have no interest and leave it at that.
I really don't se what you are afraid of, I read skeptic information almost daily. You'll live, I'm certain of it.
edit on 6-2-2013 by
NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
reply to post by wildtimes
The idea of Jesus pbuh spending the unaccounted years in east only affects the one whose faith rests on it being not true. For others its just a curiosity.
However even Buddha has unaccounted years till he got 'enlightened' and a lot of myths about them. Seperating fact from fiction is almost impossible.
Every famous man has 'lost' years as who would care to pay attention to a 'not yet famous' kid/teen but
I read the biography of saint Issa and i am amazed! If its true and not forged, it seriously puts Bible(NT) to question.
The idea of Jesus pbuh spending the unaccounted years in east only affects the one whose faith rests on it being not true. For others its just a curiosity.
However even Buddha has unaccounted years till he got 'enlightened' and a lot of myths about them. Seperating fact from fiction is almost impossible.
Every famous man has 'lost' years as who would care to pay attention to a 'not yet famous' kid/teen but
I read the biography of saint Issa and i am amazed! If its true and not forged, it seriously puts Bible(NT) to question.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes
Look up the late "Dr. Bruce M. Metzger". Just one name.
He interviewed the greatest experts, scholars, and theologians on the face of the Earth.
Now, stop with the fallacious attacks and either read it, or tell me you have no interest and leave it at that.
I really don't se what you are afraid of, I read skeptic information almost daily. You'll live, I'm certain of it.edit on 6-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
Wut???
What are you talking about? You told me to look up Strobel. I did, fearlessly. I gave you my impressions, and they are every bit as valid - as are my own ideas of the Source - as Mr Strobel's. He doesn't intimidate me, and neither do you.
Now you present Bruce M Metzger. What I am supposed to read?
I'm not afraid, NuT, and your implication that I am sounds like you are seeing your own fear and projecting it onto me.
Now, I'm going to look up Metzger (having just spent two hours reviewing and reading the chapter entitled "The God of the Mystics" in Ms Armstrong's pinnacle work on monotheism.
Have you looked at it yet? Have you read it? Who is it that's afraid???
Honestly, there's not one thing to be afraid of!! Not one. That's why I can't stand Western Christianity - it's all about "fear". "This way or burn in hell," is the doctrine, and I will never accept it. Your decision is your own, but it makes me sad.
What "fallacious" attacks?
reply to post by wildtimes
I never asked you to look up Strobel, I asked you to read a particular book in which he (Strobel), interviews several experts that tackle the validity of this very thread's premise. Dr. Bruce M. Metger was given as one example to the experts he interviews.
The fallacious attacks are looking into Strobel, considering none of the expert testimony or analysis rests on his (Strobel's) authority. So those are just ad hom and poisoning the well arguments. I don't deal in them.
I never asked you to look up Strobel, I asked you to read a particular book in which he (Strobel), interviews several experts that tackle the validity of this very thread's premise. Dr. Bruce M. Metger was given as one example to the experts he interviews.
The fallacious attacks are looking into Strobel, considering none of the expert testimony or analysis rests on his (Strobel's) authority. So those are just ad hom and poisoning the well arguments. I don't deal in them.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Okay, done. Metzger was a leading scholar on the New Testament and did translations and so on and so forth.
So?
What's that got to do with Strobel's shallow evangelism?
DUDE! You said "read Lee Strobel." I watched HIM SPEAKING ABOUT HIS BOOK, and preaching. Now you are trying to turn my having done so into my bad? !! If you failed to make clear why you wanted me to read Strobel, that's on YOU, not on me committing these "debate fouls"!!
Jeez, Chillax!
Okay, done. Metzger was a leading scholar on the New Testament and did translations and so on and so forth.
So?
What's that got to do with Strobel's shallow evangelism?
DUDE! You said "read Lee Strobel." I watched HIM SPEAKING ABOUT HIS BOOK, and preaching. Now you are trying to turn my having done so into my bad? !! If you failed to make clear why you wanted me to read Strobel, that's on YOU, not on me committing these "debate fouls"!!
edit on
7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
Jeez, Chillax!
edit on 7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Okay, well, then, you must acknowledge that YOU ARE THE ONE who brought Strobel into the discussion and presented what he wrote as some kind of "go-to" fountain of knowledge.
Now you regret it. Fine. Let's pretend Strobel was never mentioned (Lord knows I could have lived my entire life without knowing he existed, let alone hearing the stuff he spews). I should blame YOU for poisoning ME!
So those are just ad hom and poisoning the well arguments. I don't deal in them.
Okay, well, then, you must acknowledge that YOU ARE THE ONE who brought Strobel into the discussion and presented what he wrote as some kind of "go-to" fountain of knowledge.
Now you regret it. Fine. Let's pretend Strobel was never mentioned (Lord knows I could have lived my entire life without knowing he existed, let alone hearing the stuff he spews). I should blame YOU for poisoning ME!
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Okay, done. Metzger was a leading scholar on the New Testament and did translations and so on and so forth.
So?
What's that got to do with Strobel's shallow evangelism?
DUDE! You said "read Lee Strobel." I watched HIM SPEAKING ABOUT HIS BOOK, and preaching. Now you are trying to turn my having done so into my bad? !! If you failed to make clear why you wanted me to read Strobel, that's on YOU, not on me committing these "debate fouls"!!edit on 7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
Jeez, Chillax!edit on 7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
It has nothing to do with Strobel's "shallow evangelism", go back to the original mention of the book. In which I suggested it be read because the experts interviewed in it specifically address the topic in this thread. I suggested reading what the experts said because there are limits at ATS as to the amount of copyrighted material I can copy/paste.
This was never about Strobel, you made it so. Strobel isn't an expert.
Read the book or no?
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
So those are just ad hom and poisoning the well arguments. I don't deal in them.
Okay, well, then, you must acknowledge that YOU ARE THE ONE who brought Strobel into the discussion and presented what he wrote as some kind of "go-to" fountain of knowledge.
No I did not, you should read more carefully. The 'fountain of knowledge' is in the experts he interviews, not Steobel. Strobel just plays the devil's advocate and poses to these experts the questions and objections skeptics commonly ask.
Now you regret it. Fine. Let's pretend Strobel was never mentioned (Lord knows I could have lived my entire life without knowing he existed, let alone hearing the stuff he spews). I should blame YOU for poisoning ME!
I regret nothing.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Wow. Really? I never even heard of the guy before YOU SAID READ THIS BOOK and linked it to scholars.
Exactly. Far, far from it.
Given that agrement ----
No, there's no point. I already disagree with his entire premise...and would prefer to read the SOURCES' work themselves, which Strobel has clearly orchestrated into a conman scheme and got rich doing so.
Opiate of the masses and all that....chicanery.
Snake oil sales. So he talked to someone who was an expert? Big woop. It's what one DOES with the knowledge gleaned from the experts....no different than quoting Bible verses to prove the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.
What do you not get about "original sources"? "Primary sources"?
Like the guy in the critique of his book said, Christians would do well to refrain from using Strobel as a source of authority. Or expertise (which clearly the 30,000 members of the Willow Creek megachurch 'believe' he is).
How about you read 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James, and then get back to me.
Or, easier still, read 'The Fifth Gospel' by Dr Fida Hassnain, a Sufi mystic with credentials that at LEAST equal Dr Metzger's...and whose work is far more comprehensive than simple linguistic study of the New Testament. There you will find that JESUS WAS probably A BUDDHIST, who survived the resurrection and retired to the East and lived to be an old man.
This was never about Strobel, you made it so.
Wow. Really? I never even heard of the guy before YOU SAID READ THIS BOOK and linked it to scholars.
Strobel isn't an expert.
Exactly. Far, far from it.
Given that agrement ----
Read the book or no?
No, there's no point. I already disagree with his entire premise...and would prefer to read the SOURCES' work themselves, which Strobel has clearly orchestrated into a conman scheme and got rich doing so.
Opiate of the masses and all that....chicanery.
Snake oil sales. So he talked to someone who was an expert? Big woop. It's what one DOES with the knowledge gleaned from the experts....no different than quoting Bible verses to prove the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.
What do you not get about "original sources"? "Primary sources"?
Like the guy in the critique of his book said, Christians would do well to refrain from using Strobel as a source of authority. Or expertise (which clearly the 30,000 members of the Willow Creek megachurch 'believe' he is).
How about you read 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James, and then get back to me.
Or, easier still, read 'The Fifth Gospel' by Dr Fida Hassnain, a Sufi mystic with credentials that at LEAST equal Dr Metzger's...and whose work is far more comprehensive than simple linguistic study of the New Testament. There you will find that JESUS WAS probably A BUDDHIST, who survived the resurrection and retired to the East and lived to be an old man.