Is Jesus a Buddhist?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The bottom line is that Jesus Christ is not just exalted. That is saying a mouthful. But the Bible states that Jesus is highly exalted. Jesus is highly exalted above and over all false gods and religions. Religion is man's greates effort and attempt to reach God. But Jesus is God's simple Way to God. God made it simple. Man through his trillions of false gods and religions has made getting to God difficult.

Getting to god? As if we are separate from God. How can we be separate from the life force of the universe?

We are off topic and, in this thread, we should maintain the topic of the thread.

Originally posted by Regret
We are off topic and, in this thread, we should maintain the topic of the thread.

Sorry. 😮

Originally posted by Regret
We are off topic and, in this thread, we should maintain the topic of the thread.

Agreed , Well Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaa Buddha was 1 hell of a good guy, and so waz Christ so yeah they kind of the same and dont consider it Blasphemous Because it aint

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry. 😮

Lol, if it's your thread we can follow the line we are following, I just thought it might be a line of discussion you didn't mean to enter into.

I believe that Jesus, being very smart, knew about the teachings of Buddha.

Okay.

If Jesus was actually a Buddhist, don't you think there would be ... well ... a bit more Buddhism in his teachings? Where are the Four Noble Truths? The Eightfold Path?

If Christianity is too similar to Buddhism to say, "Coincidence," it's not hard to explain. Buddhism was still popular in India, which had dealings with various Middle Eastern Countries. Jesus heard Buddhist teachings from some Indian, took what he liked, and discarded the rest. That sort of thing happened all the time; Paul has parallels with various Greek philosophers coming out the wazoo, even though he wasn't a Stoic or a Cynic.

But "Jesus used some Buddhist teachings" is very far away from, "Jesus was a Buddhist."

Originally posted by Gregory
Okay.

If Jesus was actually a Buddhist, don't you think there would be ... well ... a bit more Buddhism in his teachings? Where are the Four Noble Truths? The Eightfold Path?

If Christianity is too similar to Buddhism to say, "Coincidence," it's not hard to explain. Buddhism was still popular in India, which had dealings with various Middle Eastern Countries. Jesus heard Buddhist teachings from some Indian, took what he liked, and discarded the rest. That sort of thing happened all the time; Paul has parallels with various Greek philosophers coming out the wazoo, even though he wasn't a Stoic or a Cynic.

But "Jesus used some Buddhist teachings" is very far away from, "Jesus was a Buddhist."

I would agree with your assessment.

Originally posted by Regret
You keep putting limitations on a God that I believe is without them.

Is Christ a hypocrite?

If not then actions and behaviors he commands us to perform are actions and behaviors he himself would do, to state otherwise would make him a hypocrite.

Show me the verses that state that Christ would not, not that we will or anything else, verses stating that he will not.

First show me Scriptures that state that He will. I have already furnished Scriptures in support of my belief.

And, no, Christ Jesus is not a hypocrite, He is God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
First show me Scriptures that state that He will. I have already furnished Scriptures in support of my belief.

Like I said earlier Christ could of taught anything other in his life without them being recorded, Is Good that your quoting scripture and all but you got to remember thats not wat was all to it they can be plenty of other lost scriptures out there, Around the 1930's or something archaeoligist discovered new gospels, gospel of mary,gospel of phillip, and gospel of Thomas, but we dont ever hear about them because they contradict with the earlier Gospels we discovered and were already used to. so the catholic church considers it blasphemy and doesnt include them. and they were written around the same time so before you state the originals are the correct one to belive, think which one Should u believe in they were all written around the same time and most contradict

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
Agreed , Well Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaa Buddha was 1 hell of a good guy, and so waz Christ so yeah they kind of the same and dont consider it Blasphemous Because it aint

Jesus is God, Buddhas are people. How in the world can you sit there and conclude that they are the same? In fact Jesus is still alive. The primary Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, is dead.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus is God, Buddhas are people. How in the world can you sit there and conclude that they are the same? In fact Jesus is still alive. The primary Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, is dead.

🙄 Jesus died 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
First show me Scriptures that state that He will. I have already furnished Scriptures in support of my belief.

And, no, Christ Jesus is not a hypocrite, He is God.

I don't state that he will, I state that the Bible doesn't limit him in the possibility to.

You need to pay attention to what the Bible says and don't limit your opinion of things it does not. The Bible is clear as to how we are to behave, but it is not clear on unimportant matters. You limit God by denying his ability to do things, the Bible does not support your limitations. I will not say God will or will not do things that the Bible does not state, but that does not limit the possibility. The Bible is not in support of your limitations of God.

You have not furnished scriptures that say Christ will not. You have furnished scriptures stating things that he will do. The statement of a will do does not preclude these possibility. You limit God through errant logic. If I say I will bow to Christ, does that mean I will never stand again? No, the same goes for your supporting scriptures, they do not limit, they merely state an action.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't state that he will, I state that the Bible doesn't limit him in the possibility to.

You need to pay attention to what the Bible says and don't limit your opinion of things it does not. The Bible is clear as to how we are to behave, but it is not clear on unimportant matters. You limit God by denying his ability to do things, the Bible does not support your limitations. I will not say God will or will not do things that the Bible does not state, but that does not limit the possibility. The Bible is not in support of your limitations of God.

You have not furnished scriptures that say Christ will not. You have furnished scriptures stating things that he will do. The statement of a will do does not preclude these possibility. You limit God through errant logic. If I say I will bow to Christ, does that mean I will never stand again? No, the same goes for your supporting scriptures, they do not limit, they merely state an action.

So basically you said all that to say this: you cannot support your assertions. But I have with Scriptures. You want me to do something but then when you are asked to do the same, you are not able to.

Originally posted by Regret
Jesus existed before the language you quoted, does that mean he is not the Christ? Since the term came about after he came into being?

What?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So basically you said all that to say this: you cannot support your assertions. But I have with Scriptures. You want me to do something but then when you are asked to do the same, you are not able to.

No.

I said all that to say this: You cannot support your assertions. But you errantly think you have with Scriptures, the verses you quoted do not support the idea that Christ will not bow, they merely state that we will. I do not want you to do anything but read the scripture without your bias and accept that they do not necessarily show their support.

You quote verses that do not necessitate your interpretation. I merely state that these verses support my claim as well as they do yours.

All I am saying is we don't know, the Bible did not state one way or the other and you haven't provided verse supporting your stance.

Originally posted by Regret
Wrong.

Lazarus and the little girl were raised from the dead.

I said "religious" figure meaning leader or forefront representative of some organized religion. Although Jesus did not start a religion (semantics) He came to show us how to live, pay for our sins, and bring us to God, by giving us eternal life.

Originally posted by Regret
No.

I said all that to say this: You cannot support your assertions. But you errantly think you have with Scriptures, the verses you quoted do not support the idea that Christ will not bow, they merely state that we will. I do not want you to do anything but read the scripture without your bias and accept that they do not necessarily show their support.

You quote verses that do not necessitate your interpretation. I merely state that these verses support my claim as well as they do yours.

All I am saying is we don't know, the Bible did not state one way or the other and you haven't provided verse supporting your stance.

How? You haven't furnished one verse. I stand firm in my position (which is based on the Bible) that God did not use the hypothesis of evolution to created anything. I gave a number of Scriptures that I believe support my position. I even expounded them. But you have not done so. You just keep going back an forth with me "without" supporting what you claim with the Bible. Can you see the difference?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I said "religious" figure meaning leader or forefront representative of some organized religion. Although Jesus did not start a religion (semantics) He came to show us how to live, pay for our sins, and bring us to God, by giving us eternal life.

😱 He started one of the 3 biggest religions in the world. Now I just don't believe you.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What?

The term Christ came into existence after Jesus. Your logic against Buddhist states that since Jesus was in the beginning before Buddhist he obviously was not Buddhist. If you apply logic as an argument it has to also support a claim that you make. Your logic did not support your claim. I believe in many ways as you do, I am not attacking your view, I am merely explaining that you cannot argue something and then state that the argument is invalid when applied to your belief. If the argument is invalid when applied to your belief the argument is flawed.