Originally posted by Nellinator
A funny analogy, but one that does not apply here. Accepting Jesus as the Son of God is the only way to God.
God as described in the Semitic religions, is a compassionate, omnipotent, all hearing all seeing god. If that were true, then a god, who witnesses the suffering of his creatures and does not respond to their cry for help, is an unjust, callous, and cruel god. Thousands of children are dying every day around the world by draughts, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters or as we call them the "acts of God". The victims of these natural “holocausts” cry in desperation, pray with anguish, weep in silence, yet God does not care or is unaware that they need help. What god is this God?
All the evidence shows that the God as described religious books like the Bible is not wise, compassionate and loving, although this is what these books claim. Even if that was true, I cannot believe in a god that is wise, loving and compassionate. And I cannot believe in a god that sends messengers, answers prayers, rewards or punishes. Because in the first case a god that possesses attributes, is being separated from his attributes. A being cannot be infinite unless you and I are part of it. And in the second case, a god that acts is limited in time and in space. What if we did not think of God as wise, but as wisdom? What if we did not view him as loving, but love? What if God was not compassionate but compassion? What if God was not a "being"? What if It was not a "thing", things have attributes. What if we thought of God as the Principle underlying the creation? What if God was the Reality? Reality is formless, eternal and unchanging. As the Reality, God would not have attributes. It would be the Principle behind the process of creation. It would be the Principle and the creation the process. The Principle does not act. It does not create, it does not send messengers nor is it aware of you, me, and the entire creation. Being aware is an attribute. God has no attributes. Instead God is awareness itself. It is not knowing, but knowledge itself. It is not loving, but love itself.
Note that I did not use the pronoun "he" or "she" to speak of God, but "It"; because God is not a person. "It", is a Reality. "It", is the Ultimate Reality.
The laws of the other world work in unison with the laws governing this world. In fact there is only One Law or I calledd the The Single Principle. We humans tend to dissect everything and classify them. That is because we can digest it only if we take it one bite at a time.
Take for example the law of gravity. It is a manifestation of the Single Principle in the physical world. It applies to everything; it encompasses all things and rules over all the material existence, from the smallest particles to the biggest objects in the universe all abide by it. You can use this law and fly. Now suppose while in the air you drop yourself from the airplane. You have broken that law and you will pay for it. There is no one to punish you nor your prayers on the way down will avail you. The law is the law. It is not cruel nor it is merciful. The same law that allows you to fly will kill you when you transgress it. The ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is up to you to understand it and obey it.
This is a simplified but perhaps adequate example of the laws of this universe. Spiritual laws work in the same way. When you break a spiritual law you pay for it. There is no one to punish you! There is no sadistic god to put you into a burning pit and pour boiling waters on your head! But by breaking the spiritual laws you have hindered the spiritual growth of your own soul. Just like a child who is born in this world with some physical defects, you will enter the realm of spirits with a defective spiritual “body”. And just as the handicapped child will find life more challenging in this world than the one who is born with a healthy body, a defective soul will find his stance in the other world more unbearable than the person who in born there with a healthy spiritual body.
This does not mean that there is no God or that God is an unintelligent law. There is a Principle underlying the creation. All attributes manifested in this world are reflections of that Principle. Intelligence, for example, is a manifestation of a higher Intelligence. And that is the Single Principle. God is not a person. It is not a being. It is not a thing. But to say God is not a thing does not mean that God is nothing! God is The Single Principle underlying the creation. It is The Principle and the creation is the process. God is how and the creation in what! That is all there is; the “how” and the “what”!
Our beliefs mean nothing! Our actions count! All the fasting and prying, all our religious devotion, all our personal sacrifices for our Faith, are waste of time and energy. In the course of our intellectual evolution we sacrificed humans at the altars of various gods, we waged wars in the name of various gods, we suffered self-mortifications to appease various gods, and we killed and gave martyrs to glorify various gods.
The only thing we have to do is to learn how to love. Love is the law of the universe. However, what I write is my own understanding of God. God can be understood but It cannot be defined. Therefore this is not an attempt to define God but to stimulate thinking. So that people can find God through their own efforts and in their own way. God is a Reality. Reality is not a thing, it is not a being; and it cannot be defined. Say for example Love. Love is a reality, not a thing nor a being. You cannot define Love but you can understand it and you can feel it. You can feel love but you cannot “ask” love to enter into your heart. Love enriches the lives of those who receive it but It is indifferent to them. Love is not forgiving, it is not intelligent, and it is not loving; because Love is not a being. And so is God. It is us who need God and have to live by It. We have to live God. Praising him, worshiping him and praying to him, is waste of time. An anthropomorphic God either physically or psychologically as described by Semitic religions is absurd. Yet no one can describe God just as no one can describe love. We all can know God. It is a one-to-one relationship. This is a path that no guru or prophet can show you. Those who pretend that they can are impostors. God is the Truth and Truth is PATHLESS. God is love and love needs no intermediaries. You have to discover it yourself. It is your personal journey. But once you know God, you are enlightened. The instance of enlightenment is the most exhilarating and soul transforming moment in one’s life. It can never be described nor it can be conveyed by any words or means. How can you describe the beauty of the sunset to a born blind?
My only advice to all those who seek enlightenment are those words of Buddha, “Doubt everything, find your own light”.
Funny how the Bible says God is love. You must remember that God will have human qualities as we are created in his image. But he does not have our negative qualities. You sit and gripe about starving children in Africa and what do you do about it? How many here are actually part of the solution? Not many I presume. Christians do more to help and aid suffering people around the world than any other people group. God obviously works against poverty and suffering whiile most others sit around and pretend to actually care (I say pretend because if they cared they would do something about it). Perhaps you should fund the building of schools in Africa, an interest free bank for single mothers in Vietnam with small businesses, buy livestock for poor farmers in Zimbabwe, or sponsor food banks for poor people in Mozambique. I see God working against poverty all the time. I see God answering prayers because he loves us.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are the one who is wrong. All you have to do is read the Gospels that the Roman church tried to destroy.
* i just quoted a Bible verse and i was wrong? you just said that the Church of Jesus was already extinct and the Church of Paul was left standing... on the contrary, according to the Bible, Saint Paul preached the Church of Jesus (Romans 16:16)... how can i be wrong if you can't even refute my post? 😕
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that the Gospels of Thomas and Mary are authentic copies, because I have read them and they are consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but not with the teachings of Paul.
* are the Gnostics in accordance with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First, you do not know that John wrote that for that reason. You don't even know that John even wrote that gospel.
* Saint John wrote it...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Second, I don't believe in the prophecy, that is the church of Paul.
* the Christ is all about fulfilling the prophesies, i think you are so misled... Saint Paul never preached himself, he preached the Church of God in Christ Jesus (I Thessalonians 2:14)...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus was not divine and may not have died on the cross, I don't know.
* according to the 4 Gospels in the Bible, Jesus is divine and died on the cross... if you admitted that you don't know this, you are the one who is terribly wrong... even the Roman history acknowledged a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in all of the teachings of the Gnostics, but IMO they are more consistent with the teaching of Jesus.
* more consistent with the teachings of Jesus compared to what? the 4 Gospels? the epistles of Saint Paul? you have to prove that first...
* and then again, maybe not... because you just admitted that you don't even believe in all of the teachings in the Gnostics... you've got double-standards, my friend...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no gods or demons, there is only you, and you are a part of God.
* even the Gnostics say there is a God and there are demons... you contradict the same thing you claim to be "more consistent with the teachings of Jesus"...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes and no. Jesus was never in any Buddhist text, but I see Jesus as a Buddha.
* sigh... that's a killer... now that's an opinion... 😉
Originally posted by peejayd
* i just quoted a Bible verse and i was wrong? you just said that the Church of Jesus was already extinct and the Church of Paul was left standing... on the contrary, according to the Bible, Saint Paul preached the Church of Jesus (Romans 16:16)... how can i be wrong if you can't even refute my post? 😕
The bible is not proof of anything.
* are the Gnostics in accordance with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
You should read them and find out for yourself.
* Saint John wrote it...
No, that is an assumption that is not supported by historians. A scribe most likely wrote the four Gospels. Not every one knew how to write back then.
* the Christ is all about fulfilling the prophesies, i think you are so misled... Saint Paul never preached himself, he preached the Church of God in Christ Jesus (I Thessalonians 2:14)...
There are no such things as prophecies. No one can see into the future. Paul change the interpretation of the words of Jesus from a Gnostic to a Roman interpretation.
* according to the 4 Gospels in the Bible, Jesus is divine and died on the cross... if you admitted that you don't know this, you are the one who is terribly wrong... even the Roman history acknowledged a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross...
No according to the Church, Jesus is divine. They even had a big meeting and declared him divine. Again another Roman habit. They would often declare the emperor divine.
* more consistent with the teachings of Jesus compared to what? the 4 Gospels? the epistles of Saint Paul? you have to prove that first...
No, that is my option based upon reading the 4 Gospels and the Gospels of Thomas and of Mary. Maybe you should read them too.
BTW the idea of proving something on a forum is stupid, no offence, but no one ever proves anything of this forum.
* and then again, maybe not... because you just admitted that you don't even believe in all of the teachings in the Gnostics... you've got double-standards, my friend...
I am a Buddhist. Because I tell you about the Gnostics, but I don’t believe in their religion, makes me have a double standard? Does a person have to be a Nazi to talk The Third Reich?
* even the Gnostics say there is a God and there are demons... you contradict the same thing you claim to be "more consistent with the teachings of Jesus"...
I never claimed to be a Gnostic.
* sigh... that's a killer... now that's an opinion... 😉
And I stated it as an opinion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, that is an assumption that is not supported by historians. A scribe most likely wrote the four Gospels. Not every one knew how to write back then.There are no such things as prophecies. No one can see into the future. Paul change the interpretation of the words of Jesus from a Gnostic to a Roman interpretation.
No according to the Church, Jesus is divine. They even had a big meeting and declared him divine. Again another Roman habit. They would often declare the emperor divine.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Luke was a doctor (which is likely why he wrote on Jesus's healing ministry more than the others) and very educated and wrote both the Gospel According to St. Luke and Acts. Matthew was a tax collector and very wealthy from which can be inferred that he was educated. I cannot tell you exactly how John and Mark were educated (probably could if I took the time to find out), but it should be noted that literacy was actually rather high around Jesus's time, and many Jews were educated in the temples. Also, they may have written the Gospels by dictating to a scribe, which still means that they are the author.
Yes, God can see into the future and he sometimes reveals it through the gift of prophecy. Prophecies are being fulfilled even today. But, I guess that does not end this unendable argument. Also, Paul was a devout Jew (responsible for the deaths of many Christians) before his conversion. Therefore Paul would never contradict God's teachings as the Gnostics did.
According to OT prophecy Jesus is divine. The church did not make it up. Paul knew that Christ was divine and showed so in his epistles written about twenty years after Christ's death. Also, early second century historian Pliny reported to Rome that "Christianity is the worship of Jesus as Lord". Furthermore, Jesus claimed to be divine. And the Nicean Council did not decide the divinity of Christ, it merely disclaimed the few dissenters, notably Arius (who still viewed Christ as divine, but saw him as less than God). Everyone at that Council knew that Jesus was divine, it was the extent that was in question. Remember that the vote for the equal divinity of Christ was 314 (some say 214) to 2.
We just see things very differently. I do not believe in the god of the bible, but if it works for you, then I am happy.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Funny how the Bible says God is love. You must remember that God will have human qualities as we are created in his image. But he does not have our negative qualities.
I dare say that should be an impossibility. How can he only have our good side and not our bad? We are created in his image, with choice, logically he should have the ability to be bad as well - besides, a perfect creator by rights should be incapable of creating something flawed without the conscious desire to do so. Either God has just as much potential for good and evil as the rest of us, or he is far from perfect.
You sit and gripe about starving children in Africa and what do you do about it? How many here are actually part of the solution? Not many I presume.
The hight of arrogance and folly I dare say to make such mass generalities. As Storm said Atheists, Agnostics and members of other religions are just as capable of contributing positively to the world, and the worlds needs as any Christian. Remember, while some Christian missionary is shouting at starving Africans in the wilderness there is an Atheistic scientist somewhere trying to find a cure to aids etc. And while there is a Christian raising money to feed a village there is an Atheist sitting on a couch somewhere doing nothing. Both theists and atheists are equally capable of helping. Being an Atheist does not somehow shut of ones ability to do good. And in my experiences an Atheist can approach helping from many different ways, unlike certain Christians who are locked onto a limited path.
Christians do more to help and aid suffering people around the world than any other people group. God obviously works against poverty and suffering whiile most others sit around and pretend to actually care (I say pretend because if they cared they would do something about it).
I see no reason to believe Christian deserve the reward for "Most Good Done"- hell, I dare say it should be seen just as much as paying off the debt incurred from centuries of doing "God's work." Diseases spread by Christians, forced conversions, the disruption and sometimes destruction of cultures, the imposition of mindsets that helped take land from natives. Even slavery at times had Christian support (the duty of the Christian world to improve the life of the dark savages.) And how many Christians are doing this out of a sense of duty rather then some noble desire to help? I know of those who see it as nothing but a minor inconvenience. "Sigh. Two years preaching in Africa before my life actually begins."
Now I am not saying there are not Christians who do good. There are a lot. And they should be thanked. But I think it is wrong to put them in a class of their own above the works of so many others. Especially when in plenty of cases the aid of the Churches is dependant on people turning up and converting.
Perhaps you should fund the building of schools in Africa, an interest free bank for single mothers in Vietnam with small businesses, buy livestock for poor farmers in Zimbabwe, or sponsor food banks for poor people in Mozambique. I see God working against poverty all the time. I see God answering prayers because he loves us.
I see people working against poverty all the time. I see people answering the cries of the hungry and suffering. I find it hard to imagine an all loving God sitting up there somewhere, with the power to solve this so easily, yet choosing not to. Choosing to take the slow way, the slow way which looses, and has lost, many millions over the years. I believe the people need more respect for their actions. They deserve recognisition. None of this "I couldn't have done it without God", because I think they can, and would of.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Luke was a doctor (which is likely why he wrote on Jesus's healing ministry more than the others) and very educated and wrote both the Gospel According to St. Luke and Acts. Matthew was a tax collector and very wealthy from which can be inferred that he was educated. I cannot tell you exactly how John and Mark were educated (probably could if I took the time to find out), but it should be noted that literacy was actually rather high around Jesus's time, and many Jews were educated in the temples.The Bible is not infallible and therefore cannot be revelation.Many of the books in the Bible are named after different people who are supposed to have written them. So the Gospel of Matthew is supposed to have been written by Matthew, one of the disciples of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is supposed to have been written by Mark, another of Jesus' disciples, and so on.
The Christian could claim that even if the Bible is not necessarily infallible revelation it is the testimony of reliable people, They could claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John knew Jesus well, they lived with him for several years, they heard its teachings and they wrote down what they saw and heard and that there is no reason for them to lie or exaggerate. Therefore, Christians could claim that the Bible is reliable testimony. Except that for testimony to be reliable it must come from reliable people, people we could trust, people from good backgrounds. Were the disciples of Jesus such people? Let us look.
Some of Jesus' disciples were tax collectors (Matt 9:9), a dishonest and despised class of men (Matt 18;17); others were mere illiterate fishermen (Mk 1:16-17). Simon was a Zealot (Lk 6:15), a group of men known for their fanatical and often violent opposition to Roman rule, and like many people involved in illegal politics he used an alias and was also known as Peter (Matt 10:2). Peter and James were given the nicknames ' Boanerges ' meaning 'sons of thunder' (Mk 3:17) once again suggesting their involvement in violent politics. When Jesus was arrested his disciples were carrying swords and were willing to use them (Matt 26:51). Hardly the sort of people with whom we would feel comfortable.
Another thing that should make us wary of trusting the testimony of Jesus disciples is that they seemed to be constantly misunderstanding what Jesus was saying (Mk 4:13, 6:52, 8:15-17, 9:32; Lk 8:9, 9:45). They are supposed to have seen Jesus perform the most amazing miracles and yet despite this they still doubted. Jesus scolded them and called them "men of little faith" (Matt 8:26, 17:20). Should we trust the writings of men who constantly failed to understand what was being said to them and whom even Jesus called men of little faith? If even the people who knew and saw Jesus had "little faith" how could we, who have never seen him, be expected to have faith in him?
How unreliable and faithless the people who wrote the Bible were is best illustrated by what they did just prior to and during Jesus' arrest. He asked them to keep watch but they fell asleep (Matt 26:36-43). After Jesus was arrested they lied and denied that they even knew him (Mk 14:66-72), and after his execution they simply went back to their fishing (Jn 21:2-3). And who betrayed Jesus in the first place? His disciple Judas (Matt 26:14-16). Association with sinners, liars and fools in order to help them, as Jesus did, is a good thing. But should we believe everything such people say?
An even more disturbing thing about the disciples of Jesus is just how many of them were possessed by demons or devils from time to time. Mary Magdalene who later claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead, had been possessed by seven devils (Mk 16:9). Satan entered into Judas (Lk 22:3), tried to get into Simon (Lk 22:31) and Jesus once actually called Peter, his chief disciple, "Satan" (Matt 16:23) indicating that he too was possessed by a devil at that time. Whether possession by devils actually happens or whether it indicates serious psychological disorders as modern psychiatrists believe, either way it indicates that we should treat the words of Jesus' disciples with great caution.
Also, they may have written the Gospels by dictating to a scribe, which still means that they are the author.
We have seen that the Bible is not infallible, is not revelation and is not the testimony of reliable, trustworthy people. We will now show that the Bible was not even written by the people who are claimed to have been its writers. Let us have a look at the first five books in the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These five books describe the creation of the world, God's first revelation to man, and the early history of the tribe of Israel and are supposed to have been written by Moses. They are, in fact, often called 'The Books of Moses'. however, his authorship is clearly impossible, because in these books we have an account of Moses' death.
So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord, and they buried him in the valley in the land Moab opposite Beth Peor , but no man knows the place of his burial to this day (Deut 34.5-6).
How could a man write an account of his own death and burial? The book of Deuteronomy, at least, must have been written by someone other than Moses.
Now let us have a look at the New Testament. The Gospel of Matthew is supposed to have been written by Matthew (tax collector, doubter, man of little faith), one of the disciples of Jesus. Yet we can easily demonstrate that Matthew could not have possibly have written the Gospel of Matthew. We read:
As Jesus passed on from there he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office and he said to him, "Follow me". And he rose and followed him (Matt 9:9).
Neither now nor in the past do people write in the third person. If Matthew had really written this we would expect it to read:
As Jesus passed on from there he saw me sitting at the tax office and he said to me, Follow me". And I rose and followed him.
Obviously this was not written by Matthew but by some third person. Who this third person is we do not know but Bible scholars have made a guess. In the preface to his translation of the Gospel of Matthew the distinguished Bible scholar J.B. Phillips says:
Early tradition ascribes this Gospel to the apostle Matthew but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view. The author, who we still can conveniently call Matthew has plainly drawn on a collection of oral traditions. He has used Mark's Gospel freely, though he has rearranged the order of events, and has in several instances used different words for what is plainly the same story.
This is a deeply disturbing admission, especially coming from an eminent Christian Bible scholar. We are told that "almost all" modern Bible scholars reject the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was actually written by Matthew. We are told that although the real author is unknown it is "convenient" to keep calling him Matthew. Next we are told that whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew has "freely copied much of his material from the Gospel of Mark. In other words, the Gospel of Matthew is just a plagiarism where material has been "rearranged" and restated in "different words". So apparently in the Gospel of Matthew not only do we no have the words of God, we don't even have the words of Matthew.
To the credit of Bible scholars like Prof. J.B. Phillips, they freely admit these an other major doubts about authorship of the Bible, but such admissions make claim that the Gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus clearly untrue.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is not proof of anything.
* then why on earth are you defending the authenticity of the Gnostics?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You should read them and find out for yourself.
* i have, and i'm asking you...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, that is an assumption that is not supported by historians. A scribe most likely wrote the four Gospels. Not every one knew how to write back then.
* but the Biblical writers knew how, that's why there's Dead Sea scrolls... Saint Luke was a physician, do not under-estimate other people...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are no such things as prophecies. No one can see into the future. Paul change the interpretation of the words of Jesus from a Gnostic to a Roman interpretation.
* there are prophecies, that's why there are prophets... why don't you just state or prove what Saint Paul changed?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No according to the Church, Jesus is divine. They even had a big meeting and declared him divine. Again another Roman habit. They would often declare the emperor divine.
* the Council of Nicaea are Catholics and not Christians... true Christians recognize Christ as a divine being, and do not decide Christ's divinity with a vote...
"Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Titus 2:13
"Simon 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
* according to Saint Paul and Saint Peter, Christ is a God and Savior...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, that is my option based upon reading the 4 Gospels and the Gospels of Thomas and of Mary. Maybe you should read them too.
* i have, and i see that the Gnostics are clearly different from the 4 Gospels we have today...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BTW the idea of proving something on a forum is stupid, no offence, but no one ever proves anything of this forum.
* what's the point of arguing? we're just going to say what we want to say? then consider everything correct... 😕
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a Buddhist. Because I tell you about the Gnostics, but I don’t believe in their religion, makes me have a double standard? Does a person have to be a Nazi to talk The Third Reich?
* you obviously defend the Gnostics in favor from the Bible today... but you're a Buddhist... no offense, but you're barking on the wrong tree...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never claimed to be a Gnostic.
* yes, you said you're a Buddhist...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And I stated it as an opinion.
* yes, i respect your opinion... you just see Jesus as a Buddhist... but the truth is, He's not... 😉
Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, i respect your opinion... you just see Jesus as a Buddhist... but the truth is, He's not... 😉
To be fair Jesus does have a lot in common with many other messiah like figures in other religions, both before and after Christianity came about. Likewise, he is a prophet in Islam and Judaism. I don't see why people can't claim he was also a Buddha - after all, Buddhism isn't just about a single Buddha - the Buddha people think of when they say "Buddha" is, depending on which type of Buddhist you speak to, just another in a line - one still effecting earth today through his teachings, kind of the current face of Buddhism. I think it is perfectly fair to consider the possibility.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
To be fair Jesus does have a lot in common with many other messiah like figures in other religions, both before and after Christianity came about. Likewise, he is a prophet in Islam and Judaism. I don't see why people can't claim he was also a Buddha - after all, Buddhism isn't just about a single Buddha - the Buddha people think of when they say "Buddha" is, depending on which type of Buddhist you speak to, just another in a line - one still effecting earth today through his teachings, kind of the current face of Buddhism. I think it is perfectly fair to consider the possibility.
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(God). 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 bodhisattvas9(enlightened beings) appear throughout the universe in order to convey the Dharma(Law or truth) 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.