I think it can be a useful teaching tool if understood symbolically.Nangwa wrote:Guru Rinpoche was a man born to parents who had penises and vaginas.Sonam Wangchug wrote:'Nangwa wrote:
Thats a possibility I suppose but even bodhisattvas in the human realm need penises and vaginas in order to take birth.
Than what's your take on Guru Rinpoche?
Thats my take. I dont buy the floral-birth legend at all and actually think it is completely unnecessary.
Interfaith Dialogue
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
- treehuggingoctopus
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
- Location: EU
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
True that. What's the heart of the matter is differentiating between myth and fact. The former isn't just bollocks, of course, but its 'truth' is metaphorical, not literal. Read a myth literally and, lo and behold, it drops dead. Dodo-like.Jikan wrote:Nangwa wrote:I think it can be a useful teaching tool if understood symbolically.Sonam Wangchug wrote:Guru Rinpoche was a man born to parents who had penises and vaginas.
Thats my take. I dont buy the floral-birth legend at all and actually think it is completely unnecessary.
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
The multiple levels of meaning in the myth are all very nicely explained in the book White Lotus by Mipham Rinpoche.treehuggingoctopus wrote:True that. What's the heart of the matter is differentiating between myth and fact. The former isn't just bollocks, of course, but its 'truth' is metaphorical, not literal. Read a myth literally and, lo and behold, it drops dead. Dodo-like.Jikan wrote: I think it can be a useful teaching tool if understood symbolically.
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Isn't that a contradiction? Your statement #1 doesn't seem to fit with your statements 2 and 3. If it is big heresy to say that Jesus is not divine and if Paul was adamant about Jesus being divine, then it does sound pretty important to Christianity for Jesus to be divine.mint wrote: 1. Jesus didn't need to be divine for Christianity to do anything.
2. Some of the greatest, most influential "heresies" in the years following the death of Jesus posited that he was a man, not divine.
3. Furthermore, you need to re-read every single one of Paul's letters, who believed in the divinity of Jesus, who was a faithful Jew, who advocated inclusion for both the Jews and the Greeks, and foresaw the day when all Jews and Greeks worshipped together.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Either Jesus' teachings are meaningful or not, quite independent of his divinity.
Many Christians have a view that Jesus' view of his mission changed over his career.
At first he saw himself as "waking up lost Jews," but later reaching out to Gentiles.
If the Hillel-ite vision is equally meaningful to non-jews, spoke to and empowered
the disenfranchised, slaves, women, eunichs, that may explain in part the appeal.
I assume that Jesus and his message were at least as charismatic as Paul.
as he branched out from his Pharisaic cocoon. Clearly, there was a healing element,
and not just physical.
Something, that seems to have been lost, made "the way" more appealing than
Mithras. Soren Kierkegaard said that there was only one thing wrong with Christianity--
it was never tried! Maybe the desert fathers were on to something, but I think that
"Sola Scriptura" is a symptom of having lost what we Buddhists call "oral transmission."
The meaning, the impact, the significance behind the words has caused an ossification
that resulted in creeds determining orthodoxy, as opposed to the lived experience
of following the way.
Many Christians have a view that Jesus' view of his mission changed over his career.
At first he saw himself as "waking up lost Jews," but later reaching out to Gentiles.
If the Hillel-ite vision is equally meaningful to non-jews, spoke to and empowered
the disenfranchised, slaves, women, eunichs, that may explain in part the appeal.
I assume that Jesus and his message were at least as charismatic as Paul.
as he branched out from his Pharisaic cocoon. Clearly, there was a healing element,
and not just physical.
Something, that seems to have been lost, made "the way" more appealing than
Mithras. Soren Kierkegaard said that there was only one thing wrong with Christianity--
it was never tried! Maybe the desert fathers were on to something, but I think that
"Sola Scriptura" is a symptom of having lost what we Buddhists call "oral transmission."
The meaning, the impact, the significance behind the words has caused an ossification
that resulted in creeds determining orthodoxy, as opposed to the lived experience
of following the way.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Indeed, this is why I do not follow his logic as it is inherently contradictory. I think at this point it is just mental gymnastics for the sake of.David N. Snyder wrote:Isn't that a contradiction? Your statement #1 doesn't seem to fit with your statements 2 and 3. If it is big heresy to say that Jesus is not divine and if Paul was adamant about Jesus being divine, then it does sound pretty important to Christianity for Jesus to be divine.mint wrote: 1. Jesus didn't need to be divine for Christianity to do anything.
2. Some of the greatest, most influential "heresies" in the years following the death of Jesus posited that he was a man, not divine.
3. Furthermore, you need to re-read every single one of Paul's letters, who believed in the divinity of Jesus, who was a faithful Jew, who advocated inclusion for both the Jews and the Greeks, and foresaw the day when all Jews and Greeks worshipped together.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
To clarify:David N. Snyder wrote:Isn't that a contradiction? Your statement #1 doesn't seem to fit with your statements 2 and 3. If it is big heresy to say that Jesus is not divine and if Paul was adamant about Jesus being divine, then it does sound pretty important to Christianity for Jesus to be divine.mint wrote: 1. Jesus didn't need to be divine for Christianity to do anything.
2. Some of the greatest, most influential "heresies" in the years following the death of Jesus posited that he was a man, not divine.
3. Furthermore, you need to re-read every single one of Paul's letters, who believed in the divinity of Jesus, who was a faithful Jew, who advocated inclusion for both the Jews and the Greeks, and foresaw the day when all Jews and Greeks worshipped together.
Orthodox Christianity was not officially settled until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Until that time, there were theological disputes and various sects claiming to be the "true" Christian religion, among them being the prevailing orthodox Christians who claimed apostolic authority and possessed a certain cohesion not demonstrated by the other sects which exponentially split at the seams. However, even within the orthodox camp were certain bishops who claimed that Jesus was not divine, and this attracted a huge following, such a huge following that it almost trumped what we know today as the current form of dogmatic Christianity. It was a critical moment where history could have gone altogether differently.
Your confusion is well understood: that which is labelled as orthodox Christianity, which includes the belief in Jesus as divine, can be nothing else but orthodox Christianity. However, as Sebastian Castellio once wittily noted, "I have carefully examined what a heretic means, and I cannot make it mean more than this: a heretic is a man with whom you disagree." My point concerns the fact that, had history gone differently, Christianity could still have been called Christianity yet not involve any belief in a divine Jesus. Indeed, even today there are plenty of Christians who do not believe in the divinity of Christ.
Last edited by mint on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
No mental gymnastics necessary, just a willingness to understand why you're misinformed.Infinite wrote:Indeed, this is why I do not follow his logic as it is inherently contradictory. I think at this point it is just mental gymnastics for the sake of.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Okay, then you admit that what got deemed 'correct' Christianity at the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus and what is widely accepted by Christians throughout the globe is that Jesus is divine. Therefore, this is important to Christianity.mint wrote: To clarify:
There may be some Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they are far-and-in-between, very few in numbers.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Yes, but Infinite's point was that there was some group of apparently anti-Semitic Christians who felt compelled to distinguish themselves from Judaism, and did so by crafting a divine Jesus as a line in the sand of sorts. This is not the case at all.David N. Snyder wrote:Okay, then you admit that what got deemed 'correct' Christianity at the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus and what is widely accepted by Christians throughout the globe is that Jesus is divine. Therefore, this is important to Christianity.
Indeed. Less than 1% based on the official numbers.There may be some Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they are far-and-in-between, very few in numbers.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
I can't tell if you are trolling or simply just trying to misrepresent what I said. What I was stating is that Divinity is what lead to the break from Judaic Tradition. There would be little point in claiming Divinity by Christians unless it was for the simple fact it would no longer give Rabbis authority over them. There is plenty of debate of whether Jesus was divine but the reality is it is largely accepted. That you are so aggressive over such trivial matters again highly amuses me.mint wrote:Yes, but Infinite's point was that there was some group of apparently anti-Semitic Christians who felt compelled to distinguish themselves from Judaism, and did so by crafting a divine Jesus as a line in the sand of sorts. This is not the case at all.David N. Snyder wrote:Okay, then you admit that what got deemed 'correct' Christianity at the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus and what is widely accepted by Christians throughout the globe is that Jesus is divine. Therefore, this is important to Christianity.
Indeed. Less than 1% based on the official numbers.There may be some Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they are far-and-in-between, very few in numbers.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
What's amusing is that you think I'm aggressive. What's also funny is how someone can be accused of being a troll so that their more educated, articulate responses can be easily dismissed.Infinite wrote:I can't tell if you are trolling or simply just trying to misrepresent what I said. What I was stating is that Divinity is what lead to the break from Judaic Tradition. There would be little point in claiming Divinity by Christians unless it was for the simple fact it would no longer give Rabbis authority over them. There is plenty of debate of whether Jesus was divine but the reality is it is largely accepted. That you are so aggressive over such trivial matters again highly amuses me.
Regardless, divinity was not the issue that lead to the schism between Jews and the Greeks, nor was it the central issue dividing Christians from the later Rabbinic Judaism. Jesus as Messiah was where the two parties could not agree. And I don't know where you're getting this idea from that the early Christians crafted a divine Jesus to deny the authority of the Rabbis. I can't begin to tell you how wrong that is, especially considering that the divinity of Jesus was attested by the earliest Christians (again, read Paul) yet Rabbinic Judaism didn't appear until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, three years after Paul's purported death. Paul and the earliest Christians, who were largely Jews, believed that Jesus was the Messiah alluded to throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; however, there was the slight revision that this Messiah was not the expected earthly deliverer of the nation of Israel but, rather, a divine savior. If you read Acts 7, you'll see one of the earliest forms of historical early Christian preaching.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
You are a very sad and angry individual. I hope you can find peace but I no longer have an interest in interacting with someone who wants to be rude and passive aggressive over Mythical Jesus. Have a very nice day.mint wrote:What's amusing is that you think I'm aggressive. What's also funny is how someone can be accused of being a troll so that their more educated, articulate responses can be easily dismissed.Infinite wrote:I can't tell if you are trolling or simply just trying to misrepresent what I said. What I was stating is that Divinity is what lead to the break from Judaic Tradition. There would be little point in claiming Divinity by Christians unless it was for the simple fact it would no longer give Rabbis authority over them. There is plenty of debate of whether Jesus was divine but the reality is it is largely accepted. That you are so aggressive over such trivial matters again highly amuses me.
Regardless, divinity was not the issue that lead to the schism between Jews and the Greeks, nor was it the central issue dividing Christians from the later Rabbinic Judaism. Jesus as Messiah was where the two parties could not agree. And I don't know where you're getting this idea from that the early Christians crafted a divine Jesus to deny the authority of the Rabbis. I can't begin to tell you how wrong that is, especially considering that the divinity of Jesus was attested by the earliest Christians (again, read Paul) yet Rabbinic Judaism didn't appear until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, three years after Paul's purported death. Paul and the earliest Christians, who were largely Jews, believed that Jesus was the Messiah alluded to throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; however, there was the slight revision that this Messiah was not the expected earthly deliverer of the nation of Israel but, rather, a divine savior. If you read Acts 7, you'll see one of the earliest forms of historical early Christian preaching.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
I'm sorry that you think I'm sad and angry - but whatever clears your conscience.Infinite wrote:You are a very sad and angry individual. I hope you can find peace but I no longer have an interest in interacting with someone who wants to be rude and passive aggressive over Mythical Jesus. Have a very nice day.
You have a nice day, too.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
In the Greek Orthodox tradition, during Easter, on the day following the ressurection, we have Jew burning day where it is traditional to burn effigies of the "quintessential Jew": Judas Iscariot! There have been lots of lines drawn in the sand, sea, earth and sky by antisemitic Christians across the whole of Europe, denying Jesus's ancestry. Did you forget the Spanish Inquisition for example? What about the events in Alexandria?mint wrote:Yes, but Infinite's point was that there was some group of apparently anti-Semitic Christians who felt compelled to distinguish themselves from Judaism, and did so by crafting a divine Jesus as a line in the sand of sorts. This is not the case at all.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
No, but given that the above discussion pertains to proto-Christianity, I felt no need to reference such later historical events as my only intention is to correct some unfortunate misconceptions.gregkavarnos wrote: Did you forget the Spanish Inquisition for example? What about the events in Alexandria?
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9511
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Buddhism on God
I knew a guy who got tired of always having to explain buddhism to people.
When somebody would ask, "what church do you go to?"
he would say, "wherever you think god is, that is where my church is!"
When somebody would ask, "what church do you go to?"
he would say, "wherever you think god is, that is where my church is!"
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:06 am
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Most people base their beliefs of Jesus from the Bible.
Influences come from different understanding of it...school, church, TV, family, peers, etc.
Constantine put the Bible together 300 years after Jesus' death. So it is said.
What about the gnostic texts that were left out because they weren't understood?
What do these texts reveal? Higher teachings?
Could the Bible be like the Sutras and the gnostic texts be like the tantras?
Jesus taught sutra and tantra.
All true spiritual and religious teaching leads to the same thing.
Some are deeper than others depending on where we are in the desire realm.
The goal is to get us closer to our true nature.
Influences come from different understanding of it...school, church, TV, family, peers, etc.
Constantine put the Bible together 300 years after Jesus' death. So it is said.
What about the gnostic texts that were left out because they weren't understood?
What do these texts reveal? Higher teachings?
Could the Bible be like the Sutras and the gnostic texts be like the tantras?
Jesus taught sutra and tantra.
All true spiritual and religious teaching leads to the same thing.
Some are deeper than others depending on where we are in the desire realm.
The goal is to get us closer to our true nature.
Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Prove it.In the bone yard wrote:Jesus taught sutra and tantra.
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:06 am
Interfaith Dialogue
If people ask me if I believe in God I tell them I do, but in a different way. I then tell them I believe in what the Bible teaches and end it there. If there's further interest, I'll explain further depending on their disposition. Most of the time I say that all religions point to the same thing, there are just different ways of getting there. In actuality, the bible was not meant to be interpreted as Catholic or Baptist or Buddhist when the word was written.
If you are too strong in your outward beliefs you may alienate potential followers. Then you won't be able to keep an open relationship for a potentially stronger spritual friendship which should be the goal.
Religion start wars. Big ones (countries) and small ones. One on one conversation starts karma in motion which will always grows outward, growing bigger and bigger.
If you are too strong in your outward beliefs you may alienate potential followers. Then you won't be able to keep an open relationship for a potentially stronger spritual friendship which should be the goal.
Religion start wars. Big ones (countries) and small ones. One on one conversation starts karma in motion which will always grows outward, growing bigger and bigger.