Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Accurate as to what? Most of these holy books have one source whose credibility relies on faith. Define accurate for me under those conditions.
Good point.
My definition of 'accurate' is without the influence of any pagan beliefs added in. The gospels were written with first-generation accounts; same goes for most of the epistles. a few, like revelations came from a 2nd or 3rd generation source. this is what all christians call primary sources. Most christians count on this to any historical research. Are the gospels and the epistles authentic in the Hebrew Bible? Were they raw accountable information written by the apostles and the disciples themselves without having any outside beliefs mixed in later on?
Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Good point.My definition of 'accurate' is without the influence of any pagan beliefs added in. The gospels were written with first-generation accounts; same goes for most of the epistles. a few, like revelations came from a 2nd or 3rd generation source. this is what all christians call primary sources. Most christians count on this to any historical research. Are the gospels and the epistles authentic in the Hebrew Bible? Were they raw accountable information written by the apostles and the disciples themselves without having any outside beliefs mixed in later on?
The earliest recorded gospel was written 80 years after the death of Jesus, and two of the subsequent gospels were based off of this account. How are these first generation accounts?
Furthermore, the Christian bible shares its first five books with the Hebrew bible, and pagan influences are present from the first chapter; There are two creation accounts in Genesis, one is of the Yahwest tradition, the other is borrowed from the Babylonians.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats what I think too. Not only Buddhism that shares common teachings, and stories with christianity. But we can find analogies in many other religions, even hinduism, and the sumerian religion seem to have their share.
I've read the same thing.
Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Although this theory is fascinating and I would love to believe this to be true, but......Keep in mind, that their core philosophies differ. Buddha emphasized rebirth of the mindstream. It's questionable whether Jesus believed in reincarnation. Buddha taught that each there was no soul; Jesus did not.
Many many Gnostic writings described Jesus as believing in reincarnation. Of course the Roman church would have no control over the people if they were allowed to believe this....No way, that's why "Hell" was put into it's place....better control over the people.....The Church tried to burn all the Gnostic texts....Ever wonder why.....
Originally posted by mr.smiley
I also read a book on Asia mythology that had a story of a great flood and a man that made a ship to stay alive.Don't have any sources on it though,but it was pretty interesting.
Almost every religion has a story like that come to think of it. Greece did, Babylon did, etc.
Originally posted by debbiejo
I've read the same thing.Many many Gnostic writings described Jesus as believing in reincarnation. Of course the Roman church would have no control over the people if they were allowed to believe this....No way, that's why "Hell" was put into it's place....better control over the people.....The Church tried to burn all the Gnostic texts....Ever wonder why.....
Yeah.The goal for Gnostics was to reach gnosis (enlightment) and become a Christ (like a Buddha).Almost identical.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Many many Gnostic writings described Jesus as believing in reincarnation. Of course the Roman church would have no control over the people if they were allowed to believe this....No way, that's why "Hell" was put into it's place....better control over the people.....The Church tried to burn all the Gnostic texts....Ever wonder why.....
Do you think Gnosticism is more reliable than the New Testament? I believe the majority of the christians rejected it anyway. I don't think the church had anything to do with it unless you can prove it to me otherwise.
Why do you believe that Jesus was gnostic? As I mentioned before in another thread, the New Testament predated the gnostic gospels.
Dan Brown's best selling novel, The Da Vinci Code was based on Gnostic scriptures. And yet the novel is entirely fiction. Brown's basings were proven false by 20/20 on the ABC network.
Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Do you think Gnosticism is more reliable than the New Testament? I believe the majority of the christians rejected it anyway. I don't think the church had anything to do with it unless you can prove it to me otherwise.Why do you believe that Jesus was gnostic? As I mentioned before in another thread, the New Testament predated the gnostic gospels.
Dan Brown's best selling novel, The Da Vinci Code was based on Gnostic scriptures. And yet the novel is entirely fiction. Brown's basings were proven false by 20/20 on the ABC network.
Well I believe that Jesus could of possibly been an Essene which I thought was a sect of the Gnostic's....I've read all the Gnostic's and felt that what Jesus taught was closer to what the Essenes taught...I think he was enlightened to many things that medicine and science has confirmed like diet for one...Here's a quick link I just looked up.
http://www.british-israel.us/12.html
I also read that is mother Mary and Grandmother Anna and John the Baptist were also.
I just found out that the Indians were not the only ones to believe in reincarnation. It turns out that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks believed in it as well.
Here's an article about it:
http://members.aol.com/wwssgrhll/Andrew2.html
According to this the Gnostics, Cabalists, and the Manichaeans were among the few sects of Judaism and Christianity to adopt this belief.
Good article...I've heard of Dr. Ian Stevenson..Read some of his stuff, and there are some interesting recounts indeed....Yep the Gnostics, and Cabalists were part of the Christian movement and was thought of as heretics and persecuted for it.....It would of been interesting to see how differently things would of been if the controlling part of the Christian church (the one we have today)...would not have grown, but died out instead...Hmmmmm.....Probably would of been a much better world today.
I think it's safe to say that Jesus possibly adopting reincarnation brings no evidence that he went to India since there are regions far closer to Palestine that believes in it.
However there are some other close evidences of the 'Jesus in India theory.' The reincarntion bit is no longer evidence of him going to India anymore.
Ah, Ian Stephenson found his way into this thread as well. Awesome guy for anyone interested in reincarnation. His findings are fairly bullet-proof, about the only way to explain them away is simply to ignore it or to use some sort of false logic.
I really have to read the Gnostics...been reading up on Buddhism recently, and a lot of this stuff fascinates me.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ah, Ian Stephenson found his way into this thread as well. Awesome guy for anyone interested in reincarnation. His findings are fairly bullet-proof, about the only way to explain them away is simply to ignore it or to use some sort of false logic.I really have to read the Gnostics...been reading up on Buddhism recently, and a lot of this stuff fascinates me.
What kind of Buddhism are you reading about?