Being christian while rejecting important OT figures?

nenothtu
I feel honored. You treat MY words he same as you treat the Bible - you glom on to what you like, and discard and ignore what you don't.

Funny guy ... I quoted you exactly and agreed with it ... but you are still trying to find fault. Like I said .. you just want to argue with someone.

I do note however that you are wholly incapable of answering the simple question I posed to you - whether you believe the Ten Commandments to be of God or not.

I answered it fully. The laws of the 10 Commandments had been around for hundreds and hundreds of years before Moses supposedly got them on a mountaintop from the hand of God Himself. And Moses was highly educated and would have known them beforehand. Therefore, the 10 Commandments easily could have been made up by Moses. But they are still good laws for civilization to live by. As to if they directly were written on stone by the hand of God .. I highly doubt it.

It should be a lively discussion when you meet him face to face. It ought to be interesting to see how he receives the news that his words are not from him,

'Go and stone people to death because they committed adultery' ... those aren't 'His words' .... so no worries from me.

nenothtu
I've not heard the angle that Jesus was really teaching Buddhism before. Are you not really a Buddhist then instead of a Christian?

The Buddhists point to many things that Jesus taught and say that it is buddhist. Even Buddha said 'let the sins of the world fall upon me' .. (to pay karmic debt ... which sounds strangely familiar like 'sin debt'). Buddha predated Jesus by hundreds of years and Buddhas teachings were indeed around that area of the world. It is POSSIBLE that Jesus was incorporating Buddhism into Judaism and getting a mish-mash that became Christianity. Anything is possible. None of us were there 2000 years ago to know for sure.

And no I'm not Buddhist. They have some kind a belief in extinguishing of the soul. I do not. I think the anecdotal evidence of reincarnation supports their thoughts on that ... but no, I"m not Buddhist. I have a soul and it's all mine forever.

Since he testified as to Abraham and many other OT references, I cannot reject them without also rejecting his testimony.

Feel free to put that added burden upon yourself if you believe it's necessary. I"ll keep it simple ... Jesus came from Heaven to save humans from their sinful nature and 'love God and neighbor'. That's what is required to have the label 'Christian' and I accept those terms.

nenothtu
How can there be any sin to be saved from if God has no laws, no standards to measure sin BY? How can man be held accountable for breaking a rule God never made?

The laws of basic human decency and Love God and Love Neighbor.
If YOU want to think that the Old Testament laws of 'dont' eat shellfish or you'll go to Hell' ..' don't use birth control (onanism) or you'll go to hell ... stone people to death because they got caught committing adultery .. if you want to think those came from God and not just a person claiming to be speaking for God, well then go right ahead. I don't see any loving God in those and if a God was to make those laws I wouldn't want to worship Him anyways. But if you want to think God made them ... go right ahead. Your choice. We weren't there and we don't know.

reply to post by nenothtu

A unique perspective. I've not heard the angle that Jesus was really teaching Buddhism before. Are you not really a Buddhist then instead of a Christian? If Jesus didn't take his teaching from the OT, and only some of it "mirrors Buddha", did he then just make the rest up on the fly? A sort of "pray as you play" program?

You haven't heard that angle yet?

There are scholars in the Middle East who have impeccable backgrounds and credentials and have earned numerous Doctorates and Honors for their work in archaeology an study of ancient texts not found in the Bible. Prof. Fida Haissnan & Rabbi Dahan Levi authored a book some years ago entitled

The Fifth Gospel: New Evidence from the Tibetan, Urdu, Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After Crucifixion

It gives very impressive evidence for the idea that Jesus was in India during his "missing years" (13-30). Since Christianity has no alternative explanation, and this theory has written evidence to back it up (ancient texts from Eastern sources - which refer to him as Issa; the same name given to him by Muslims today) as well as a tomb that could very likely be that of the aged Jesus after fleeing those who crucified him and returning to Kashmir in "self-imposed exile" (wouldn't you flee if you survived a crucifixion and were a condemned man in the region?).

This is one review from amazon (the above link is from the publisher):

Professor Fida M. Hassnain and Rabbi Dahan Levi wrote this scholarly study of the life and mission of Jesus in the East throughout his lifetime, including his post-crucifixion life, drawing on sources ranging from Sanskrit to Buddhist, Hindu, Persian, Muslim and Kashmiri to New Age and the Mew Testament itself.

More research has been done since the first edition of this book appeared in 1998, and the subject of the post-crucifixion life of Yesue, or Yuz Asaph, as he was known in Kashmir, is now better accepted among many scholars. But for some Christians this is still a very controversial subject.

Hassnain and Levi make the credibility of their material, controversial though it may be to many, very real, both in the authenticity of contemporary and ancient sources as well as in the wealth of their origin. Written with true reverence, this book is a must for Christian scholars as well as others who do not fear to lose their magical beliefs about the real significance of Jesus.

One could follow up this study with the expanded and even more fully authenticated study by Professor Hassnain entitled A Search for the Historical Jesus, the new edition of which is available from Down-to-Earth Books.

Another review from www.goodreads.com...:

There are many different ideas suggested in this book but the main idea is that Jesus learned from the traditions of the Buddhists and his (New Testament) teachings reflect this. He was closely tied with the Essenes who influenced him as well. I really enjoyed his explanation of the scattering of the tribes of Israel and showing how there are many eastern enclaves of people who, even today, have Hebrew traditions as part of their culture. The region of Kashmir houses today the supposed burial places of Jesus, both Marys, and Thomas, who all are said to have lived there.

I think there are thousands of millions of Western Christians who have no idea that this is even an existing theory, complete with archaeological evidence and texts that back it up.

A simple comparison of Buddha's teachings with Jesus' is indicative of the same general 'education' in Eastern mystic traditions.
FF can provide a comparison of things they both said. Or if she doesn't have it handy to point you to (where she's posted it before), I can look one up.

I highly recommend the theory, as it makes MUCH more sense than the current "Christian" view.

just sayin'.

nenothtu
I can also say "before Abraham was, I am." with a straight face and mean it. I am not a god, however.

That's one of the things Jesus said that make Buddhists think that Jesus had studied Buddhism. They think he was referring to his own reincarnations and that he had been around for a very long time. That he was talking about his pre-existence. The Jews thought pre-existence could only be for God. The Buddhists think that pre-existence is for everyone.

Jesus spoke that to the Jews .. so either
1 - he was lying
2 - he was telling them, in terms they'd understand, that he is God
3 - he was teaching them a buddhist belief about reincarnation
4 - or something else and we haven't got a clue what he meant

Considering his audience was Jewish and that their own belief system would take that as Him claiming to be God .... I'm thinking it was him claiming to be God. But we weren't there to ask for clarification so ....

ETA - ETA - One of many sites comparing Jesus and Buddha

Both Jesus and Buddha (who came hundreds of years before Buddha) said ... 'let the sins of the world fall upon me'. Karmic debt. Sin debt. They both had the same message. Kinda interesting ....

FlyersFan

nenothtu
I can also say "before Abraham was, I am." with a straight face and mean it. I am not a god, however.

That's one of the things Jesus said that make Buddhists think that Jesus had studied Buddhism. They think he was referring to his own reincarnations and that he had been around for a very long time. That he was talking about his pre-existence. The Jews thought pre-existence could only be for God. The Buddhists think that pre-existence is for everyone.

Jesus spoke that to the Jews .. so either
1 - he was lying
2 - he was telling them, in terms they'd understand, that he is God
3 - he was teaching them a buddhist belief about reincarnation
4 - or something else and we haven't got a clue what he meant

Considering his audience was Jewish and that their own belief system would take that as Him claiming to be God .... I'm thinking it was him claiming to be God. But we weren't there to ask for clarification so ....

ETA - ETA - One of many sites comparing Jesus and Buddha

Both Jesus and Buddha (who came hundreds of years before Buddha) said ... 'let the sins of the world fall upon me'. Karmic debt. Sin debt. They both had the same message. Kinda interesting ....

edit on 12/13/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

Well I've pissed away the whole morning. I'll have to reply more fully later, but for now just leave this to get the day started:

Before Abraham was, I am. You are, too. Paradoxically, perhaps, before Abraham was, Abraham IS, too. That notion just makes people's heads hurt, though.

I am not a god.

I have never, ever, reincarnated. There is, and has ever only been, one of me running around, which fact all should probably thank God for.

I am not lying about that - I have a basis for the statement.

That leaves #4 - I'll leave you now to figure out just what I mean over the course of the day. Hint: the answer is in the Bible itself.

I don't know if the answer is in Buddha's Book or not - he seems to have thought that we all have to keep doing it over and over until we get it right, so it probably isn't.

I suppose Buddha found his own answers, for Buddha. They may have worked for him. I suppose he's found out by now whether they did.

Or he may not have.

FlyersFan

I answered it fully. The laws of the 10 Commandments had been around for hundreds and hundreds of years before Moses supposedly got them on a mountaintop from the hand of God Himself. And Moses was highly educated and would have known them beforehand. Therefore, the 10 Commandments easily could have been made up by Moses. But they are still good laws for civilization to live by. As to if they directly were written on stone by the hand of God .. I highly doubt it.

Yes, you answered it fully, but not directly. I had to hop around ATS reading several of your posts in several threads to confirm that you don't believe it. I find it very difficult to logically reconcile the notion that anyone stands in need of being saved from something that does not exist to be saved from.

'Go and stone people to death because they committed adultery' ... those aren't 'His words' .... so no worries from me.

Wrong thread. The "stoning people for adultery" thread is that way ----->

This one is about calling yourself a Christian while simultaneously rejecting important OT figures who defined what a "sin" is (through their interaction with an OT God who set the standards for what "sin" is) that you claim to believe Jesus came to save you from. In a larger sense, it's about calling yourself a Christian while simultaneously rejecting the God that Jesus referred to as his Father.

It is NOT about stoning adulterers. That thread is over there ---->

You seem to be confusing Levitical Law with other laws, confusing and conflating them. I bet there is a GOOD reason for that.

The Buddhists point to many things that Jesus taught and say that it is buddhist.

Many other people point to the Mesoamerican pyramids and say that proves there were Egyptians in Central America. Coincidences happen, even striking ones. A stopped watch is still right twice a day, every day.

Feel free to put that added burden upon yourself if you believe it's necessary. I"ll keep it simple ... Jesus came from Heaven to save humans from their sinful nature and 'love God and neighbor'. That's what is required to have the label 'Christian' and I accept those terms.

How could Jesus save anyone from "sins" that are undefined? How could anyone simultaneously "love" God and reject him, too? As I said earlier, the OT is a necessary foundation for Christianity to have been built upon. You don't have to take it literally, but you can't reject it out of hand, either.

What was that Jesus said about building a house on shifting sands again? How much worse would it be to simply hose all the sands away and build it on nothing at all?

The laws of basic human decency and Love God and Love Neighbor.

Human decency? Human decency?

Take God out of the equation altogether?

Again, how can one "love" God while simultaneously rejecting him? I'm serious about that - I want to know how you believe that works.

If you, as a human, can define sin yourself, using standards of human decency, then obviously and logically, you can also save yourself. You would have no need of a savior/intercessor/intermediary. You would not need Jesus at all.

Therefore ==> not a Christian. A Secular Humanist instead.

If YOU want to think that the Old Testament laws of 'dont' eat shellfish or you'll go to Hell' ..' don't use birth control (onanism) or you'll go to hell ... stone people to death because they got caught committing adultery .. if you want to think those came from God and not just a person claiming to be speaking for God, well then go right ahead. I don't see any loving God in those and if a God was to make those laws I wouldn't want to worship Him anyways. But if you want to think God made them ... go right ahead. Your choice. We weren't there and we don't know.

I believe you are still confusing the Levitical Laws with God's law. You are in good company there, though - most Muslims and Jews do, too.

Here is an example of the difference:

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

nenothtu
Therefore ==> not a Christian. A Secular Humanist instead.

Whatever dude. Think what you want. The facts say otherwise. This is a useless discussion and tiresome. You'll not accept the definition facts presented and the brain dead indoctrinated will continue with drive-bys screaming 'atheist' simply because I worship God differently from them. So think what you want. It's wrong. But think what you want. I don't care.

FlyersFan

Whatever dude. Think what you want. The facts say otherwise. This is a useless discussion and tiresome. You'll not accept the definition facts presented and the brain dead indoctrinated will continue with drive-bys screaming 'atheist' simply because I worship God differently from them. So think what you want. It's wrong. But think what you want. I don't care.

It is apparent that you don't care.

I constructed a logical argument showing how you fit the Secular Humanist mold far more closely than the Christian mold.

You FAILED to refute even a single point of that argument, so it stands. it now stands as "fact", BECAUSE you failed to refute even the slightest point of it.

That's where indoctrination takes you. it will not because it cannot ever refute a fact or give a logical or reasonable answer to questions presented to it.

SO - you are right. I will believe what I want, and will believe it as fact, because you have failed to refute it - therefore the factualness stands, and stands without question - you were utterly unable to ask questions that the argument could not answer.

One does not "worship" God by thinking they know better than God. One does not worship God by placing other gods before him, as Secular Humanism does - it places man in the place of God, and we get notions then that "sin" is measured by the yardstick of "human decency".

Secular Humanists attempt to turn MAN into GOD thereby. They break the very FIRST Commandment by doing that, but it's OK in their mind since they reject the Commandments anyhow.

They know better than God.

Do you know who ELSE thought he knew better than God in those dusty old stories?

Satan. Lucifer. Beelzebub. Oh, even HE knows God exists and acknowledges that, he just thinks he knows better than God, and therefore deifies himself.

In company of Secular Humanists.

Those dusty old stories also say that a great lie would be sent to deceive even the very Elect, if that were possible... but it's not. They cannot be deceived because they question everything until a satisfactory answer is provided. Lies cannot stand up to questioning.

That is something Secular Humanism can never, ever, do.

You have demonstrated that admirably. Congrats.

reply to post by nenothtu

blah blah blah ... dead wrong. But like I said ... believe what you want.
It's useless to discuss this anymore. You don't listen. Whatever.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Fair enough.

reply to post by nenothtu

no, it wasn't. It's illogical to expect someone to pay for sins they never committed or took willful responsibility for. Likewise, I don't pay bills that I never made.

I DO NOT believe in any "original sin", because Jesus didn't mention it,

I am not endorsing the doctrine of "original sin" or the idea that Adam caused a sin problem for mankind. But that teaching - however wrong it may sound - happens to be a teaching of Christianity.

I believe in Adam and the prophets because Jesus did, and based his work upon them.

And that is the correct approach to understanding Jesus.
Believing in Adam and the prophets because Jesus did is NOT the same as believing every single doctrine taught by Christianity.

Christianity cannot be defined by the perspective of "special cases"... especially so called "Christians", who reject parts of the Bible that are foundational to Jesus' role as "savior from sin"... especially the types who refuse to address a direct quote from Jesus where he mentions the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

reply to post by wildtimes

There are numerous cases of it happening in this day and age. What science has discovered is that we DON'T REALLY KNOW when is the appropriate time to declare "death," because there are people ALIVE NOW who were pronounced DEAD, even had rigor setting in, but they CAME BACK TO LIFE.

I have heard cases of people coming back to life at their own funerals... but its merely cases of people being mistakenly pronounced "dead". Clearly that is not the same as the "death" of Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus really died on the cross.... and that his real dead body was placed in the tomb.... and that his dead body came back to life and that Jesus ascended to heaven.

If Jesus never really died on the cross, then it invalidates the whole idea of Jesus "death on the cross" for the sins of mankind idea.

sk0rpi0n
And that is the correct approach to understanding Jesus.

.... says the muslim who has stated that he can't wait for Christianity to die. It's hysterical that you are attempting to 'school' Christians in what you think is the correct approach to understanding Jesus when you don't even know who Jesus is.

You told Sahabi that he wasn't qualified to argue with the Muslim scholars simply because he read a few books on Islam. Well ... right back atchya. You, a Muslim who admittedly hates Christianity, aren't qualified to school christians on what they should or shouldn't believe in regard to Jesus.

Comical. Thanks for the early Sunday morning laugh ...

You were proven wrong on the first three pages of this thread, and yet you refuse to admit it because it goes against your 'Christianity should die' agenda.' THE ONLY THING REQUIRED to be a Christian - believe that Jesus came from heaven to save souls and try to follow his commands of love god and neighbor. Nothing else is required.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

If Jesus never really died on the cross, then it invalidates the whole idea of Jesus "death on the cross" for the sins of mankind idea.

That may be, for some people. For me, it makes no difference. I believe in The Golden Rule, and looking after the needy. I don't think it has to have anything to do with "sin", "original" or otherwise.

We all make mistakes. All of us.

That doesn't mean we all deserve to burn in hell, and I personally don't believe that's what Jesus taught. My take on his supposed statements of "I am the way" are also reflective of Buddha. Buudhism calls it "the Narrow Way" - same as Jesus.

I believe Jesus was a mystic, using language that his followers could understand. Buddhist principles and mysticism are NOT easy to wrap one's head around if never exposed to them early.

It took me much study to really "get" what Buddhism (Oriental thinking) was all about when I first started learning about it in my early 30s. Allan Watts was the author, and it took some mind-gymnastics for me to 'get it.' But once I did, and felt that "enlightenment" feeling, fleeting and rare as it is, I totally understood what Jesus was talking about. And it wasn't burning in hell, or him being a "sin sacrifice." Frankly, it doesn't make one difference to me if he died on the cross or didn't, if he recovered using Eastern mind control techniques (there are gurus/yogis alive today who can put themselves in a "death-like" static state), Essene medical attention given to him by his knowledgeable friends, or whatever.

The swoon theory makes more sense to me than the "bible" version of him being dead; I don't believe he was stabbed "in the heart", but instead it was beneath the third rib on the right side (the fluid was, therefore, from a pleural effusion - a 'puncture' to the lining of the lung causes fluid buildup - which, when drained, is bloody water - I know from eye-witness experience when my husband nearly died of empyema and needed his lung drained - in fact, that 'stab' might have saved Jesus from dying by draining out the fluid!), I think it's highly likely his pals somehow made a deal with Pilate (who was sympathetic to Jesus, and so was the Roman in charge of the ghastly process), treated him and spirited him away.

NOW, with the knowledge of quantum physics and cases of spontaneous 'recovery' of persons thought to be dead, it appears to me that they THOUGHT he was dead, just as people nowadays are THOUGHT to be dead, but are not.

Used to be that I thought it was "miracle enough" that he recovered, but the more I'm learning, the more it seems possible that he was simply an early case of the "buried alive" thing that has gone on forever. They used to put bells on strings above graves so that the "buried" could ring it if they 'recovered' in their coffins.
It happened. Still happens.

I think Jesus was talking about Buddhist 'elevation' of the Divine Spark to awareness of its unity with The Whole. But, that's my syncretic opinion, based on years and years of study and inquiry and thought.

''My take on his supposed statements of "I am the way" are also reflective of Buddha.''..... Unlike Jesus, Buddha never referred to the Israelite prophets/figures... Which is what the Op is about. Buddha had nothing to do with the middle eastern religiom that Jesus followed... So bringing up Buddha in a thread about Jesus and the Ot figures is....(is not a very intelligent thing.)

sk0rpi0n
So bringing up Buddha in a thread about Jesus and the Ot figures is....(is not a very intelligent thing.)

Educate yourself.

There is a lot of evidence to support the thought that Jesus taught a mish-mash of Judaism and Buddhism. So for Wildtimes to suggest that Jesus teachings weren't strict Old Testament, but instead included Buddhist teachings, does indeed fit this thread. It makes more sense then what you have been spewing. In fact, Jesus rejected Old Testament laws such as stoning a person to death, but embraced Buddhist philosophies. Either that, or Buddha found the truth even before Jesus arrived to teach it.

Jesus teaching and OT laws .. not even close.
Old Testament - stone a person to death for committing adultry.
Jesus - Only the sinless (which is no one) should stone a person to death.
Old Testament - Death, death, death. List of death penalty OT laws
Jesus - You must forgive seven times seventy times.

Jesus and Buddha teachings ... love and forgiveness ... very close.
Was Jesus Buddhist

JESUS: "A foolish man, which built his house on sand."
BUDDHA: "Perishable is a city built on sand." (30)
JESUS: "Therefore confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed."
BUDDHA: "Confess before the world the sins you have committed." (31)
JESUS: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the foregiveness of sins."
BUDDHA: "Let all sins that were committed in this world fall on me, that the world may be delivered." (32)
JESUS: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
BUDDHA: "Consider others as yourself." (33)
JESUS: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also."
BUDDHA: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words." (34)
JESUS: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
BUDDHA: "Hatreds do not cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good." (35)
JESUS: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
BUDDHA: "Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." (36)
JESUS: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her."
BUDDHA: "Do not look at the faults of others or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done." (37)
JESUS: "You father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."
BUDDHA: "The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low." (38)
JESUS: "If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
BUDDHA: "The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (39)

double post

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Unlike Jesus, Buddha never referred to the Israelite prophets/figures... Which is what the Op is about. Buddha had nothing to do with the middle eastern religiom that Jesus followed... So bringing up Buddha in a thread about Jesus and the Ot figures is....(is not a very intelligent thing.)

Who would you expect Jesus to talk about? He had to keep his message 'relevant' and 'approachable' for the people he was teaching, who didn't understand the Oriential thought process...

of course he would 'refer' to 'people' the masses knew about!! It's common sense to "meet the student where they are" - one can't suggest an entirely new thought-process with totally foreign concepts and figures to people who have little to no education about any of it, and expect to keep their attention!!

Not very intelligent? It makes no difference whether the OT stories are myths or not, nor the characters contained within. It was the context that the Middle Eastern people could understand - like a spring-board...one doesn't start a kindergartner on calculus! Nor does one try to teach a kindergartner calculus in a foreign tongue, with symbols they've never heard of!! Of course the kid would fall asleep, or be distracted. In order to keep their attention, the teacher MUST begin where the student is, and build on that.

My post stands. It's not off-topic, it's perfectly intelligent, it makes sense... and you're just being deliberately obtuse. Again.

sk0rpi0n
Christians, is such a thing even possible in your belief system? Can one really call himself a 'christian' if he/she dismisses key Biblical characters such as Adam, Melchizedek and Noah as myths...while speaking ill of the prophets Abraham and Moses? I know Jews and Muslims hold these OT characters in high regard.... But what about christians? Discuss.

edit on 9-10-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Personally I would say yes you can without issue for the person or group. My reasoning for this is due to the changes of all religions to suit the era in which they are currently practiced. Not that I agree with it but that is just how religions survive. I have seen no evidence for any currently practiced long standing religion that has not been watered down to some extent to make them more palatable to the majority of those that hold it dear. I know of no group that practices any teachings to the letter as they were created.

It honestly just boils down to the persons views on the subject presented to them. My personal views are this. Were there actual people that lived as presented in the texts? Yes possibly so for some and for sure on others. Did events happen as presented? Highly doubtful and no depending on what your referring to. Outside of faith there is nothing to show that Adam was the first man, the world flooded with Noah on a boat, or Muhammad rode a winged animal.

on a personal note
IF there is a god and true religion I fail to see how that deity would make his information so blatantly confusing that massive discussion would be needed to understand it. Nor would there be a need for any type of scholar or theologian to study and explain meanings to anyone. I love to discuss theology but it depresses me to see people of different faiths or views sit and tear at each other in an effort to show they are right about matters of faith.

reply to post by FlyersFan

There is a lot of evidence to support the thought that Jesus taught a mish-mash of Judaism and Buddhism.

If that were true, we should see more churches teaching this sort of thing. We don't.
So your belief that Jesus' teachings included Buddhist concepts is purely a personal belief... it is not Christianty followed by 2 billon people. So you are on your own as far as this is concerned.

Jesus teaching and OT laws .. not even close.

Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, which would obviously include the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. Jesus also told people to do and observe as the Pharisees say.... and you know that the Pharisees were obsessed with the OT Law.

sk0rpi0n
If that were true, we should see more churches teaching this sort of thing. We don't.
So your belief that Jesus' teachings included Buddhist concepts is purely a personal belief... it is not Christianty followed by 2 billon people. So you are on your own as far as this is concerned.

I didn't say that Christianity said the teachings were a mish-mash of Judaism and Buddhism.
I didn't say that I thought it was.
I said that there IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT those who think it is.

Your opinion was that it was UNINTELLIGENT for Wildtimes to state that what Jesus taught was similar to Buddhist teachings. I gave proof that those who think Jesus was influenced by Buddhism have a good point and it is indeed INTELLIGENT for them to think it's possible.

Instead of the usual attacking of the poster who you disagree with .... how about you actually address the information provided that shows Jesus teachings compared to Buddhas teachings. They match. Wildtimes assertion that Jesus could have been teaching a mish-mash of Judaism and Buddhism has legs. Address the issue that WIldtimes raised. (and no, that doesn't mean toss insults at WIldtimes as you run away).