Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Okay, so I'm really confused. Can someone explain this concept? They never really explain it in Church and stuff, and I feel bad about being a Roman Catholic without really understanding it.

I like to think of it in terms of oneness.

The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. The beginning, the middle and the end.

Its like in Hinduism, (which I continously keep on mentioning )

Brahma - the Creator
Vishnu - the Maintainer
Shiva - the Destroyer

In Christianity I understand it as -

The father - the Creator
The Son - the Maintainer
The Holy Spirit - the Distoroyer


Its probably different in Christian theology, but it is how I understand it.

But they're all supposed to be God, just in different forms Really confuses me

Yes, same supreme deity.

In Hinduism, people like to think there are ''many gods''. There are not. There is only one supreme deity. That supreme deity is the beginning, the middle and the end.

Its all the same thing, acting as different occurrence. Trinity in Christianity displays the same characteristics.

Are you sure? The first commandment says not to worship anything apart from God, yet Christians pray to Jesus the Son. Is this bad?

Originally posted by Council#13
Are you sure? The first commandment says not to worship anything apart from God, yet Christians pray to Jesus the Son. Is this bad?

I don't know, in all honesty.

Im not that knowledgable on Christian theology.

petpet

Originally posted by Council#13
Are you sure? The first commandment says not to worship anything apart from God, yet Christians pray to Jesus the Son. Is this bad?

yes i think it is. to acknowledge that jesus was god is one thing, but then its made so that jesus is his own entity at the right hand of god. so all that 'trinity=one' is wrong.

That's what I can't understand. It's like "They're all one but all different!"

Originally posted by PVS
yes i think it is. to acknowledge that jesus was god is one thing, but then its made so that jesus is his own entity at the right hand of god. so all that 'trinity=one' is wrong.

If Jesus is an incarnation of God, then technically Christians are worshiping one god.

Although I am still convinced that Christian theology works in the same way Hindu theology does.

In Hinduism, God had sons' not born of anything else, but just his mind. Thus they existed on earth has his incarnations.

However they are part of him, as is everything else. Him and all are one.

The theology got confused down the line somewhere.

Hmmm..... maybe it's three gods in one.... whatever, I'm lost

Hmm, might be actually.

I don't think we should treat this scientifically at all. Thats the whole enjoyement of religion and mythology

True

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I like to think of it in terms of oneness.

The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. The beginning, the middle and the end.

Its like in Hinduism, (which I continously keep on mentioning )

Brahma - the Creator
Vishnu - the Maintainer
Shiva - the Destroyer

In Christianity I understand it as -

The father - the Creator
The Son - the Maintainer
The Holy Spirit - the Distoroyer


Its probably different in Christian theology, but it is how I understand it.



You forgot to mention KALI the Goddess of Death and Destruction

She was in Lamb: A Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Friend

ok, Father, son, holyspirit.
All the same thing, all with the same intentions just different concionesses, in Gods wisdom i shall say he divided himself to proside over different parts of humanity.
The God we pray to.
The son we relate to.
The holy sprit we ask to fill our hearts.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If Jesus is an incarnation of God, then technically Christians are worshiping one god.

Although I am still convinced that Christian theology works in the same way Hindu theology does.

In Hinduism, God had sons' not born of anything else, but just his mind. Thus they existed on earth has his incarnations.

However they are part of him, as is everything else. Him and all are one.

The theology got confused down the line somewhere.


Buddhist scriptures, or sutras, present a far more refined and uplifting description of the divine reality which we awaken to once we are free of our finite, materialistic, and self-centered point of view. The Buddha describes God (he called him Brahma, since he had never heard the Germanic word "God" or the Jewish "YHWH" as one who resides in the highest of the heavens and who is perfect in his love, compassion, joy, and equanimity. This God is one we can unite with if we develop those same qualities in ourselves. But even this is a limited conception of God according to Buddhism.

The concept of Creator does appear in Buddhism after all. The first case is as the deity Brahma. Brahma was the all-powerful creator deity of Brahmanism (the religion that today is known as Hinduism). In Buddhism, Brahma appears when the Buddha attains enlightenment and is the one who convinces him to share his profound realization out of compassion for all suffering beings. Brahma is then viewed as the protector of the Dharma (or Truth taught by the Buddha).

Other times however, Brahma is shown to be no better than the Greek Zeus, the chief of the gods but not the actual creator of the universe. Though he tries to make others think that he is omnipotent and omniscient, he is actually just as much a part of the process of life as all other beings and not its originator. However, these less than flattering representations of Brahma are probably directed more towards the pretenses and limited conceptions of Brahma held by the priests of Brahma in the time of the Buddha than they are towards Brahma as an actual being.

This leads to the next problem. The conception of Brahma or God taught by the Brahmanist priests was very similar to that taught by most Christians today. But when you really look at the image being taught, it is not much different from the mythological Zeus. God is reduced by unreflective piety to a mere being among beings, even if he is a "Supreme Being." As a being among beings, God is no longer a transcendent reality but just another being caught up in the process. This very primitive and even idolatrous conception of God is what the Buddha was poking fun of at the expense of the priests who claimed to be God's representatives on earth who could decide who will be saved and who will be damned.

The second way does Buddhism in which a Creator appears is as the Dharmakaya Buddha. The Dharmakaya Buddha is the Truth-body or Reality-body of the Buddha. We are no longer speaking about an individualized man or woman, nor are we even talking about a pantheistic concept such as "Nature" or "Being." The Dharmakaya Buddha is the unfathomable mystical reality without which there would be no true nature of reality. In this sense, it is the ground or "creator" of all beings and things. It is the basis of the process of causes and conditions, but it is also beyond the process as well. That is because causes and conditions are merely the phenomenal aspect of the Dharmakaya. In other words, it is the Dharmakaya as experienced by our finite minds and senses. Now the Dharmakaya is not a being or person, but it is not impersonal either. It defies any and all such categories, but one could say that the Dharmakaya becomes personal in and through us and our interactions with each other and the world that we live in. In this way, the Dharmakaya becomes very personal through the manifestation of individuals like Shakyamuni and also as a loving spiritual presence underlying our every experience and especially in our own awakenings and acts of compassion. In Mahayana Buddhism this is discussed in terms of the three bodies of the Buddha. Buddha-nature is another term for the Dharmakaya in terms of its presence in our lives.

Buddhists do not doubt that Brahma is loving, compassionate, joyful, and full of peace. Brahma can also be reborn as a human being. But one must remember that Brahma is the Buddhist portrayal of God as a person or being among beings, the higher conception of a supreme reality is Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is always making itself known through its sambhogakayas (enjoyment-bodies) and its nirmanakayas (transformation bodies). This is a complex Mahayana teaching which relate these ideas here to the Christian worldview. The enjoyment-bodies are the personal aspects of the Dharmakaya which are apprehended as a very personal presence in our lives. The enjoyment-bodies touch our hearts and minds with the ideal qualities of buddhahood including love, compassion, and wisdom. In the sutras, the sambhogakayas are even portrayed as transcendent figures or beings who reside in various pure lands from whence their compassion and wisdom embraces all beings. A sambhogakaya has many similarities with the Holy Spirit or the Risen Lord. A transformation-body is the historical actualization of the Dharmakaya and sambhogakaya in the life of a specific individual - Shakyamuni Buddha for instance. Through such a person, we are able to hear the teachings, learn the methods for realizing the truth in our own lives, and see for ourselves how a fully enlightened person acts in the world. It must be stressed that these three bodies are not separate, they are three aspects of one reality, and to the extent that we awaken, we will also participate in that reality as well.

It also needs to be said that according to Buddhism there are also many bodhisattvas or "enlightening beings" who are constantly reborn into this world from the pure lands. These bodhisattvas voluntarily take up all forms of suffering and bestow all their merits upon others due to their compassionate vows to save all beings. In a sense, they have renounced their own liberation until they can be sure that all beings will be liberated from suffering. In many ways, their acts of renunciation, their willingness to suffer for the sake of others, and their bestowal of the rewards for their own good conduct upon others is similar to the story of a savior who renounces divinity, enters the world, suffers for the sake of others, and then rises and ascends into heaven in order to prepare a way for others. The bodhisattva is a prototype of such a savior, and one that appears centuries before the Christian era.

The Ultimate truth espoused by the Buddha is what called the experience of Nirvana as spoken of as a state beyond birth and death, beyond any possible conception or description. It can not be spoken of in terms of anything that our finite minds can relate to. But it is the supreme reality that is beyond causes and conditions which we can awaken to even within this lifetime, though this awakening may be only the beginning of something even more unimaginable upon death as implied by the term parinirvana (complete nirvana). Nirvana is not a state of annihilation though it is selfless. It is spoken of in terms of being pure, blissful, eternal, and the basis of true selfhood - though even these terms are only used analogously - the truth being beyond even these. Nirvana is not a person, place, or thing but it is not nothingness either.

On some occasions the Buddha even spoke of nirvana as Brahma or God, but again only analogously. The Buddha did not want to directly identify the realization of nirvana with God realization because that term meant different things to different people depending upon their idea of God. So to prevent confusion, the Buddha spoke more in terms of what nirvana is not rather than in terms of what it is. He certainly did not want to identify it with a name like "God" which was already too loaded with all kind of misleading connotations. Just as importantly, the Brahmanist priests were using their scriptures and their alleged ability to mediate God's will to impose their power over others. The Buddha wanted to avoid this pitfall of someone presuming to be able to mediate the will of God, by avoiding such rhetoric entirely. The Buddha did not claim to speak for God, rather he simply pointed the way to a direct experience of that which others speak of as God.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You forgot to mention KALI the Goddess of Death and Destruction

I felt that was irrelevant. There are plenty of incarnations for everything in Hinduism.

3 main incarnations, the ones which make one and all - are The Creator, The Maintiner and The Destroyer.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Originally posted by mahasattva
Buddhist scriptures, or sutras, present a far more refined and uplifting description of the divine reality which we awaken to once we are free of our finite, materialistic, and self-centered point of view. The Buddha describes God (he called him Brahma, since he had never heard the Germanic word "God" or the Jewish "YHWH" as one who resides in the highest of the heavens and who is perfect in his love, compassion, joy, and equanimity. This God is one we can unite with if we develop those same qualities in ourselves. But even this is a limited conception of God according to Buddhism.

The concept of Creator does appear in Buddhism after all. The first case is as the deity Brahma. Brahma was the all-powerful creator deity of Brahmanism (the religion that today is known as Hinduism). In Buddhism, Brahma appears when the Buddha attains enlightenment and is the one who convinces him to share his profound realization out of compassion for all suffering beings. Brahma is then viewed as the protector of the Dharma (or Truth taught by the Buddha).

Other times however, Brahma is shown to be no better than the Greek Zeus, the chief of the gods but not the actual creator of the universe. Though he tries to make others think that he is omnipotent and omniscient, he is actually just as much a part of the process of life as all other beings and not its originator. However, these less than flattering representations of Brahma are probably directed more towards the pretenses and limited conceptions of Brahma held by the priests of Brahma in the time of the Buddha than they are towards Brahma as an actual being.

This leads to the next problem. The conception of Brahma or God taught by the Brahmanist priests was very similar to that taught by most Christians today. But when you really look at the image being taught, it is not much different from the mythological Zeus. God is reduced by unreflective piety to a mere being among beings, even if he is a "Supreme Being." As a being among beings, God is no longer a transcendent reality but just another being caught up in the process. This very primitive and even idolatrous conception of God is what the Buddha was poking fun of at the expense of the priests who claimed to be God's representatives on earth who could decide who will be saved and who will be damned.

The second way does Buddhism in which a Creator appears is as the Dharmakaya Buddha. The Dharmakaya Buddha is the Truth-body or Reality-body of the Buddha. We are no longer speaking about an individualized man or woman, nor are we even talking about a pantheistic concept such as "Nature" or "Being." The Dharmakaya Buddha is the unfathomable mystical reality without which there would be no true nature of reality. In this sense, it is the ground or "creator" of all beings and things. It is the basis of the process of causes and conditions, but it is also beyond the process as well. That is because causes and conditions are merely the phenomenal aspect of the Dharmakaya. In other words, it is the Dharmakaya as experienced by our finite minds and senses. Now the Dharmakaya is not a being or person, but it is not impersonal either. It defies any and all such categories, but one could say that the Dharmakaya becomes personal in and through us and our interactions with each other and the world that we live in. In this way, the Dharmakaya becomes very personal through the manifestation of individuals like Shakyamuni and also as a loving spiritual presence underlying our every experience and especially in our own awakenings and acts of compassion. In Mahayana Buddhism this is discussed in terms of the three bodies of the Buddha. Buddha-nature is another term for the Dharmakaya in terms of its presence in our lives.

Buddhists do not doubt that Brahma is loving, compassionate, joyful, and full of peace. Brahma can also be reborn as a human being. But one must remember that Brahma is the Buddhist portrayal of God as a person or being among beings, the higher conception of a supreme reality is Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is always making itself known through its sambhogakayas (enjoyment-bodies) and its nirmanakayas (transformation bodies). This is a complex Mahayana teaching which relate these ideas here to the Christian worldview. The enjoyment-bodies are the personal aspects of the Dharmakaya which are apprehended as a very personal presence in our lives. The enjoyment-bodies touch our hearts and minds with the ideal qualities of buddhahood including love, compassion, and wisdom. In the sutras, the sambhogakayas are even portrayed as transcendent figures or beings who reside in various pure lands from whence their compassion and wisdom embraces all beings. A sambhogakaya has many similarities with the Holy Spirit or the Risen Lord. A transformation-body is the historical actualization of the Dharmakaya and sambhogakaya in the life of a specific individual - Shakyamuni Buddha for instance. Through such a person, we are able to hear the teachings, learn the methods for realizing the truth in our own lives, and see for ourselves how a fully enlightened person acts in the world. It must be stressed that these three bodies are not separate, they are three aspects of one reality, and to the extent that we awaken, we will also participate in that reality as well.

It also needs to be said that according to Buddhism there are also many bodhisattvas or "enlightening beings" who are constantly reborn into this world from the pure lands. These bodhisattvas voluntarily take up all forms of suffering and bestow all their merits upon others due to their compassionate vows to save all beings. In a sense, they have renounced their own liberation until they can be sure that all beings will be liberated from suffering. In many ways, their acts of renunciation, their willingness to suffer for the sake of others, and their bestowal of the rewards for their own good conduct upon others is similar to the story of a savior who renounces divinity, enters the world, suffers for the sake of others, and then rises and ascends into heaven in order to prepare a way for others. The bodhisattva is a prototype of such a savior, and one that appears centuries before the Christian era.

I am a Buddhist, but thanks for the long post. Nothing I haven't come across before.

and no one cares about my simple post that probably exlapined things better than mister thesis over hear ^^^.
Being a devote IRISH catholic i explained it as i would to a child which is what council needs, he doesn't need lectures in theology.

Why the emphasis on Irish? Does being Spanish and Catholic make you less knowledgable?

The father, the son, and the holy spirit are three successive modes in which a single god has manifested himself.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(sighs with compassionate patience) Regret, God is not one Person He is one God. Each One is called God: God the Father, God the Son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit. These three constitute one God, not one entity per se.

Think of the Godhead (i.e. diety) as a fraternity (it is not but I am using an example that we can all relate to) and the benefits of this fraternity are omnipotence (all-power), omniscience (all-knowledge), and omnipresence (ubiquity). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each in this fraternity if you would. Each Person has all three attributes respectively. So each One is God. Just as this God fraternity is singular so too is God. God is one but manifested in three distinct Persons.

I understand what you are saying now, it is not traditional Trinitarian Doctrine. I have been operating under the assumption that you followed Trinitarian belief, your description is not a traditional Trinitarian belief. It is very close, if not the same as my belief in the structure of the Godhead. Differences exist, but it is only the terms used to describe the Godhead that separates our views, aside from the exact nature of each portion of the Godhead.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why the emphasis on Irish? Does being Spanish and Catholic make you less knowledgable?
you know what you have a point, but still Irish folk have always been sonomous with deeps faith so i figured thats was neeeded. for some reason

Originally posted by bogen
you know what you have a point, but still Irish folk have always been sonomous with deeps faith so i figured thats was neeeded.


Since when, since you made it up?

Originally posted by Alliance
Since when, since you made it up? My ancestry is mainly black Irish... from what I have gathered we have always been known as having slightly unstable minds as well But yes, the Irish are known to be devout.

The trinity concept was originated in other pagan religions... in hinduism it is the three higher principles of the soul 'atman-buddhi-manas' which are related to Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva. In buddhism there are also three principles like those mentioned before.

They mean three different aspects(or functions, or ways in which God can act... if you like) of God :

The Father( or atman or Brahman) - the supreme deity.

The Son( or buddhi or Vishnu) - it is God individualized, it is God impersonated, like in Jesus Christ.

The holy ghost( or manas or Shiva) - it is the principle that guide you to become God impersonated, or in the standart christian belief(which does not agree that someone can become God impersonated)... it is the one who guide you to understand the word of God.

And the term trinity itself does not appear in the Bible. It did not exist until Tertullian coined the term in the early third century.

Uh... isn't the holy spirit the soul? And why can't people understand the concept of avatars, or of an etity(God) being in more places at once? Anyway, I've seeded questions, I'm off on other forums.

Originally posted by Council#13
Okay, so I'm really confused. Can someone explain this concept? They never really explain it in Church and stuff, and I feel bad about being a Roman Catholic without really understanding it.

* we really cannot understand it well enough if we are only having it based on the Catholic doctrine... we may somehow be enlightened if we will read the Bible...

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
Matthew 28:19

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
II Corinthians 13:14

* the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit is what the Bible says as the Godhead...

* however, the Trinitarian doctrine is unbiblical... it says that the Three are equal in power but the Bible says otherwise...

"You heard me say to you, I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
John 14:28

* Christ said that the Father is greater than Him, in fact, the Father is superior to all...

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
John 10:29

* and Christ is greater than the Holy Spirit...

"Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him."
John 13:16

* he who is sent is NOT greater than he who sent him...

"But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;"
John 15:26

* the Counselor or Comforter is the Holy Spirit... and Christ has the power to send the Holy Spirit, so Christ is greater than the Holy Spirit...

* according to the Bible, to whom should we give worship?

"I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me;
But he said to me, You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Revelation 22:9

* the angel of God hindered Saint John from worshipping him, so the Bible tells us that we should NOT worship angels...

* the angel of God also recommends to whom we should give worship... we should worship God... but should we worship Christ?

"That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."
John 5:23

* we should honor Christ as much as we honor the Father, but should we worship Christ too? the angel says we should worship God, is Christ also a God that we should worship?

"Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Titus 2:13

"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"
II Peter 1:1

* two great apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, had said that Christ is a God... their epistles are for the Christians and if we are Christians, we must accept the fact that Christ is also a God and we must worship Him...

* wait, is worshipping Christ in accordance with the will of the Father?

"But of the Son he says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.
And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, Let all God's angels worship him."
Hebrews 1:8, 6

* on verse 8, the Father called Christ -> "O God"... which means that Christ really is a God...

* on verse 6, the Father commanded His angels to worship Christ... if the angels are commanded to worship Christ, moreso for us...

"Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it."
I Peter 3:15

* see?

Originally posted by mahasattva
...Jesus like all other great religious/spiritual leader follows the same path to truth--that is Love....

No, Jesus Christ is the Way (or path), is the Truth, and is Love. The difference between Jesus Christ and everyone else is that He is these eternal Truths. Jesus is the Way, Truth, and the Life personified. Jesus Christ is Love. This eternal Truth separates Christ Jesus from all the others.

I responded to your above post mahasattva.

Who the f*ck are you. You respond, and then you post again saying that you posted.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, Jesus Christ is the Way (or path), is the Truth, and is Love. The difference between Jesus Christ and everyone else is that He is these eternal Truths. Jesus is the Way, Truth, and the Life personified. Jesus Christ is Love. This eternal Truth separates Christ Jesus from all the others.

You are deluding again my friend. There is no such thing as a one-time creation(creator) or a final apocalyptic end. The universe is an open-ended and interdependent process, and so are our lives. The idea that there are definitive beginnings and endings or absolute boundaries between things or beings is viewed by Buddhism as part of the delusion that reinforces our selfishness and sense of alienation from all that exists. So we can not talk of a supreme creator in Buddhism because there is no creation -- there is only reality just as it is, beyond words or concepts. This reality we must see for ourselves and deal with directly and not through a fog of creation myths or metaphysical speculations.

Buddhist find much to admire in the life and teachings of Jesus. Different Buddhists have different ideas about Jesus's place in the Buddhist worldview. Most Mahayana Buddhists would see him as an exemplary bodhisattva. I would agree with this. I see Jesus as an embodiment of the bodhisattva ideal. He did not teach the unique teachings of Buddhism concerning the four noble truths or dependent origination so I can not see him as a Buddha. Furthermore, his experience of God as Abba (the Aramaic word for "Daddy" seems to describe a very devotional and intimate personal relationship to Brahma. However, his selflessness is suggestive of one who has realized nirvana and he attempted to convey that to others in terms of being "born-again." His disciples experience of the Risen Lord does seem to match the Buddhist description of the sambhogakaya - a limited form of which is possessed by the bodhisattvas who are able to emanate many spiritual bodies for the sake of suffering beings. So in many ways, the life and teachings of Jesus are not incompatible with Buddhism if Jesus is understood to be a bodhisattva who attempted to convey as much as he could of the Dharma (Truth) in terms his contemporaries could understand.

In Mahayana Buddhism, it is taught that the buddhas and bodhisattvas appear throughout the universe in order to convey the Dharma in different ways to different beings. To do this, they employ what is called upaya or "provisional methods." This means that if they can not convey the Dharma directly, they will find a way to express it in a way that their listeners can understand and work with. In this way, they can gradually mature those beings to the point where they can understand the Dharma directly either in that lifetime or in a future lifetime. Sometimes, they just try to provide a way for beings to attain the heavenly pure lands where they can meet the sambhogakaya buddhas and learn the Dharma from them. Jesus's remark that he was going to prepare a place for his disciples, and that in heaven there were many mansions, and that he had other flocks his disciples did not know about are all very suggestive of such an arrangement. St. Paul also suggests that in the end, people will see clearly and not through a glass darkly.

Originally posted by mahasattva
You are deluding again my friend. There is no such thing as a one-time creation(creator) or a final apocalyptic end. The universe is an open-ended and interdependent process, and so are our lives. The idea that there are definitive beginnings and endings or absolute boundaries between things or beings is viewed by Buddhism as part of the delusion that reinforces our selfishness and sense of alienation from all that exists. So we can not talk of a supreme creator in Buddhism because there is no creation -- there is only reality just as it is, beyond words or concepts. This reality we must see for ourselves and deal with directly and not through a fog of creation myths or metaphysical speculations.

Buddhist find much to admire in the life and teachings of Jesus. Different Buddhists have different ideas about Jesus's place in the Buddhist worldview. Most Mahayana Buddhists would see him as an exemplary bodhisattva. I would agree with this. I see Jesus as an embodiment of the bodhisattva ideal. He did not teach the unique teachings of Buddhism concerning the four noble truths or dependent origination so I can not see him as a Buddha. Furthermore, his experience of God as Abba (the Aramaic word for "Daddy" seems to describe a very devotional and intimate personal relationship to Brahma. However, his selflessness is suggestive of one who has realized nirvana and he attempted to convey that to others in terms of being "born-again." His disciples experience of the Risen Lord does seem to match the Buddhist description of the sambhogakaya - a limited form of which is possessed by the bodhisattvas who are able to emanate many spiritual bodies for the sake of suffering beings. So in many ways, the life and teachings of Jesus are not incompatible with Buddhism if Jesus is understood to be a bodhisattva who attempted to convey as much as he could of the Dharma (Truth) in terms his contemporaries could understand.

In Mahayana Buddhism, it is taught that the buddhas and bodhisattvas appear throughout the universe in order to convey the Dharma in different ways to different beings. To do this, they employ what is called upaya or "provisional methods." This means that if they can not convey the Dharma directly, they will find a way to express it in a way that their listeners can understand and work with. In this way, they can gradually mature those beings to the point where they can understand the Dharma directly either in that lifetime or in a future lifetime. Sometimes, they just try to provide a way for beings to attain the heavenly pure lands where they can meet the sambhogakaya buddhas and learn the Dharma from them. Jesus's remark that he was going to prepare a place for his disciples, and that in heaven there were many mansions, and that he had other flocks his disciples did not know about are all very suggestive of such an arrangement. St. Paul also suggests that in the end, people will see clearly and not through a glass darkly.

Friend, what are you talking about?

You are ignorant. If you can't compete, you just run away. Coward.

Originally posted by mahasattva
You are deluding again my friend. There is no such thing as a one-time creation(creator) or a final apocalyptic end. The universe is an open-ended and interdependent process, and so are our lives. The idea that there are definitive beginnings and endings or absolute boundaries between things or beings is viewed by Buddhism as part of the delusion that reinforces our selfishness and sense of alienation from all that exists. So we can not talk of a supreme creator in Buddhism because there is no creation -- there is only reality just as it is, beyond words or concepts. This reality we must see for ourselves and deal with directly and not through a fog of creation myths or metaphysical speculations.

Buddhist find much to admire in the life and teachings of Jesus. Different Buddhists have different ideas about Jesus's place in the Buddhist worldview. Most Mahayana Buddhists would see him as an exemplary bodhisattva. I would agree with this. I see Jesus as an embodiment of the bodhisattva ideal. He did not teach the unique teachings of Buddhism concerning the four noble truths or dependent origination so I can not see him as a Buddha. Furthermore, his experience of God as Abba (the Aramaic word for "Daddy" seems to describe a very devotional and intimate personal relationship to Brahma. However, his selflessness is suggestive of one who has realized nirvana and he attempted to convey that to others in terms of being "born-again." His disciples experience of the Risen Lord does seem to match the Buddhist description of the sambhogakaya - a limited form of which is possessed by the bodhisattvas who are able to emanate many spiritual bodies for the sake of suffering beings. So in many ways, the life and teachings of Jesus are not incompatible with Buddhism if Jesus is understood to be a bodhisattva who attempted to convey as much as he could of the Dharma (Truth) in terms his contemporaries could understand.

In Mahayana Buddhism, it is taught that the buddhas and bodhisattvas appear throughout the universe in order to convey the Dharma in different ways to different beings. To do this, they employ what is called upaya or "provisional methods." This means that if they can not convey the Dharma directly, they will find a way to express it in a way that their listeners can understand and work with. In this way, they can gradually mature those beings to the point where they can understand the Dharma directly either in that lifetime or in a future lifetime. Sometimes, they just try to provide a way for beings to attain the heavenly pure lands where they can meet the sambhogakaya buddhas and learn the Dharma from them. Jesus's remark that he was going to prepare a place for his disciples, and that in heaven there were many mansions, and that he had other flocks his disciples did not know about are all very suggestive of such an arrangement. St. Paul also suggests that in the end, people will see clearly and not through a glass darkly.

Your post are the most difficult to understand. They are long, abstruse, and very esoteric. Try summarizing what it is you want to convey.

Stop multiple posts or I'll alert the mods.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your post are the most difficult to understand. They are long, abstruse, and very esoteric. Try summarizing what it is you want to convey.

Basically mahasattva is telling you how you and others like you have misunderstood Jesus. This is what I found, when I began to learn Buddhism I began to read the bible in a different light. I realize that what Jesus said was not what people in the Church, was telling me.

You need to read a little Buddhism to understand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Basically mahasattva is telling you how you and others like you have misunderstood Jesus. This is what I found, when I began to learn Buddhism I began to read the bible in a different light. I realize that what Jesus said was not what people in the Church, was telling me.

You need to read a little Buddhism to understand.

Amen!

Originally posted by mahasattva
Amen!

More like Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Unfortunately christianism lost much of the original meaning.

Chirstianism is a derivation of the ancient religions which actually had more content, but christianism lost almost everything and many things are interpreted in the wrong way.

Today it has a more social thing than spiritual.

Jesus could have been just a very wise man, who pretended to be the son of God. But no matter who or what he is, his teachings have yet to be fully understood IMO.

Originally posted by Madman_V3N0M
Jesus could have been just a very wise man, who pretended to be the son of God. But no matter who or what he is, his teachings have yet to be fully understood IMO.

Paul changed the teachings of Jesus.

Or perhaps people didn´t understand what he meant, or maybe both.

But one thing is true... religions do not appear magically from nothing... there are always influences and derivations from other cultures and places. That how things always happened in history.

Yeah, I'm SURE the bible contains a lot of parts that are exagerated or made up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
More like Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Amen is shorter.

Originally posted by Alliance
Amen is shorter.

But it reeks of Christianity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Paul changed the teachings of Jesus. Or perhaps he clarified the teachings when people were getting off in their interpretations. If there is a contradiction between early beliefs, such is probably the case, one of the two is correct, the other mistaken. I side with Paul, although I do not believe he was the best person at wording what he was saying, there are many of his statements that are the crux of Christian error due to interpretation. I would state that given the lack of disagreeing text from the original Apostles does tentatively support Paul's statements.

* i believe that Saint Paul is a great apostle, and never did he taught anything against Jesus...

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
Speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* Saint Peter, one of the pillars, had strong recommendations for Saint Paul and ALL his epistles... he also knew that there are some things hard to understand in Saint Paul's epistles... ignorant and unstable people twist the Scriptures as well as Saint Paul's epistles...

* there are some doctrines of Saint Paul which was not found in any other epistles because he was given great abundance of revelations by God and Christ...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Paul changed the teachings of Jesus.

It sure would be nice to see you support this allegation instead of just glibly accuse Paul of doing something that he did not do. Man, this situation sounds familiar (hmm...oh, yeah Debbiejoe has the same warped feelings about Paul).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It sure would be nice to see you support this allegation instead of just glibly accuse Paul of doing something that he did not do. Man, this situation sounds familiar (hmm...oh, yeah Debbiejoe has the same warped feelings about Paul).


What are you doing reading my posts, you are supposed to be ignoring me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It sure would be nice to see you support this allegation instead of just glibly accuse Paul of doing something that he did not do. Man, this situation sounds familiar (hmm...oh, yeah Debbiejoe has the same warped feelings about Paul).

Have you ever supported anything?


No.

Originally posted by Alliance
Have you ever supported anything?


No.

I think he just hates me.

He is a very hateful person.

Originally posted by Alliance
He is a very hateful person.

Jesus hates me!crybaby

as does JIA.