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

I've always wondered if this was possible. I know that its commonly accepted by most historians that Buddha was born 600 years before Christ. But after reading this parable many times over, I thought to myself, is it possible that the dates were messed up regarding Buddha's
birth?

600 years is not a huge gap for some sort of historical descrepency to have taken place. Particularly since man has just started keeping accurate historical records a bit under a millenium or so.

So what do you all think? Was the "Rich Young Ruler" of Mark 10:17 the Buddha? I'd like to get some of your opinions.

No. Buddha was died ~500 or so years before Jesus. Also, Buddha was from a part of the world that is now known a Nepal. If Buddha could travel to Israel, then why couldn't Jesus travel to India and learn the teachings of Buddha?

1) Buddha did not seek Eternal Life



2) ALL Historical documents prove that Buddha existed at LEAST 500 years before Christ. Buddhism began far earlier than Christianity.... that is FACT





3)Buddha did not crave earthly possessions...he did not put value into ANY of his physical or traditional treasures





Your labelling Buddhism as a self serving religion, and mischaracterization of Buddha shows a HUGE LACK of education on who Buddha was, and what Buddhism is about.....


But at least you ASKED a question about it, on that note, I'm happy you did...please try and learn though....

Here is a really good source for the history of Buddhism. Please take a little time to read through the web site.

http://sgi-usa.org/buddhism/resourceguide/resourceguide.html

Somehow the forum ate my post.

Originally posted by Regret
Somehow the forum ate my post.

I was wondering what happened.

Originally posted by Thundar
I've always wondered if this was possible. I know that its commonly accepted by most historians that Buddha was born 600 years before Christ. But after reading this parable many times over, I thought to myself, is it possible that the dates were messed up regarding Buddha's
birth?

600 years is not a huge gap for some sort of historical descrepency to have taken place. Particularly since man has just started keeping accurate historical records a bit under a millenium or so.

So what do you all think? Was the "Rich Young Ruler" of Mark 10:17 the Buddha? I'd like to get some of your opinions. Buddha entered an ascetic life in his search for enlightenment, forsaking all worldly things as well as entering a severe fast. This is why he gained followers initially, he gave up everything to learn the truth. He did this immediately following leaving his father's palace and his inheritance. Your hypothesis falls down when this fact is considered.

Why did Jesus tell the rich man to give away all of his possessions? Today, some of the richest people in the US are Christians. Should all Christians today, give away all of there property and money?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did Jesus tell the rich man to give away all of his possessions? Today, some of the richest people in the US are Christians. Should all Christians today, give away all of there property and money? Personally, I think it depends on where your heart lies. Joseph of Aramathea was a high ranking merchant with a lot of money, he wasn't told the same thing. If your wealth leads to pride and self pleasuring and does not leads to a greater aiding of one's fellow man, then it must be given up to attain a proper state of mind/being.

Originally posted by Regret
Buddha entered an ascetic life in his search for enlightenment, forsaking all worldly things as well as entering a severe fast. This is why he gained followers initially, he gave up everything to learn the truth. He did this immediately following leaving his father's palace and his inheritance. Your hypothesis falls down when this fact is considered.

Hmmm...I think what you've listed above actually supports my hypothesis, particularly since the young ruler was in a discontented state about life, much like Siddhartha Gautama was upon realizing the fickleness of worldly pleasures.

ummm, no, what you posted originally sounds like the opposite of what Siddhartha did.

Edit

Originally posted by Thundar
Hmmm...I think what you've listed above actually supports my hypothesis, particularly since the young ruler was in a discontented state about life, much like Siddhartha Gautama was upon realizing the fickleness of worldly pleasures.

Except that Budda achieved enlightenment without consulting anyone in particualar.

Originally posted by Thundar
Hmmm...I think what you've listed above actually supports my hypothesis, particularly since the young ruler was in a discontented state about life, much like Siddhartha Gautama was upon realizing the fickleness of worldly pleasures.


Everybody was in a discontented state of life.....


Buddha existed before Christ.....get over it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Everybody was in a discontented state of life.....


Buddha existed before Christ.....get over it.

I wonder if Thundar is ignoring you.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Everybody was in a discontented state of life.....


Buddha existed before Christ.....get over it.


I seemed to have touched a nerve with some of you over such a simple-innocent inquiry. So let me redirect the thread topic for a bit, and ask those who oppose my "hypothesis" a few more questions.

What do you think the end result would be, if you found out that the ideology you currently followed, was based on purposely misleading information?

Would you still hold on to your beliefs as firmly as you do now? Or would you continue to follow the same path, despite having a firm understanding of the truth that had been presented to you?

I'll answer these questions myself, as soon as I get a few responses from you all.

Originally posted by Thundar
I seemed to have touched a nerve with some of you over such a simple-innocent inquiry. So let me redirect the thread topic for a bit, and ask those who oppose my "hypothesis" a few more questions.

What do you think the end result would be, if you found out that the ideology you currently followed, was based on purposely misleading information?

Would you still hold on to your beliefs as firmly as you do now? Or would you continue to follow the same path, despite having a firm understanding of the truth that had been presented to you?

I'll answer these questions myself, as soon as I get a few responses from you all.

I don't care about the past. I am a practical man. If it works, it works.

If a doctor gave you a pueblo, and you got better, would you stop taking the sugar pills?

Buddha was just a man, nothing more, just like Jesus.

Originally posted by Thundar
I seemed to have touched a nerve with some of you over such a simple-innocent inquiry. So let me redirect the thread topic for a bit, and ask those who oppose my "hypothesis" a few more questions.

What do you think the end result would be, if you found out that the ideology you currently followed, was based on purposely misleading information?

Would you still hold on to your beliefs as firmly as you do now? Or would you continue to follow the same path, despite having a firm understanding of the truth that had been presented to you?

I'll answer these questions myself, as soon as I get a few responses from you all.

The time in which the philosophy was created makes no difference, it shouldn't even matter why Bhudda did what he did or learned what he did. And I couldn't care less.

Fact remains however that your hypothesis just isn't true. It's simple fact.

Originally posted by Thundar
I seemed to have touched a nerve with some of you over such a simple-innocent inquiry. ...

Yes, lies have that effect on me.

Originally posted by Thundar
I seemed to have touched a nerve with some of you over such a simple-innocent inquiry. So let me redirect the thread topic for a bit, and ask those who oppose my "hypothesis" a few more questions.

What do you think the end result would be, if you found out that the ideology you currently followed, was based on purposely misleading information?

Would you still hold on to your beliefs as firmly as you do now? Or would you continue to follow the same path, despite having a firm understanding of the truth that had been presented to you?

I'll answer these questions myself, as soon as I get a few responses from you all. I would change my belief accordingly and tell others about it also, which I would soon be stoned......

Originally posted by debbiejo
I would change my belief accordingly and tell others about it too, which I would soon be stoned......

You and drugs...

smoke

Well wouldn't anyone change their beliefs if they were proved wrong???

Originally posted by debbiejo
smoke

Well wouldn't anyone change their beliefs if they were proved wrong???

What is wrong? If it works, it must be right.


koch_08

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is wrong? If it works, it must be right.


koch_08

That's the point though, what if it is proven wrong? Also, it mustn't necessarily be right just because it works in the parts we discovered.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is wrong? If it works, it must be right.


koch_08 Hey!! How'd my dad get in there??

Even if someone follows a lie?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the point though, what if it is proven wrong? Also, it mustn't necessarily be right just because it works in the parts we discovered.

If it does not work, then I would not believe in it. Therefore, if it is wrong and does not work, I would not be involved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If it does not work, then I would not believe in it. Therefore, if it is wrong and does not work, I would not be involved. I'm not talking about anyone particular...just anyone and everyone...And it's any lie....Because the whole idea to me is finding truth, and only that. Things that are possible to find at this time I mean.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm not talking about anyone particular...just anyone and everyone...And it's any lie....Because the whole idea to me is finding truth, and only that. Things that are possible to find at this time I mean.

All religions have "lies" in them. They all have humans in them...

Are you sure of all beliefs?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If a doctor gave you a pueblo, and you got better, would you stop taking the sugar pills?



Since Thundar's "hypothesis" (uneducated guess) was wrong from the start...this made this whole thread priceless.

If a doctor gave me a pueblo...I'd be very happy. I'd get all my friends to move in and we'd have a rockin' time. I'd get to practice my urban development skills too.

Though what this has to do with sugar pills, I know not .

Originally posted by Alliance


Since Thundar's "hypothesis" (uneducated guess) was wrong from the start...this made this whole thread priceless.

If a doctor gave me a pueblo...I'd be very happy. I'd get all my friends to move in and we'd have a rockin' time. I'd get to practice my urban development skills too.

Though what this has to do with sugar pills, I know not .



I'm not a good speller and spell checkera can sometimes send me down the wrong path. In this case, it was funny, but I didn't know that until now. Thanks.

Well, I'd take a pueblo over a placebo any day

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, I'd take a pueblo over a placebo any day

That's the world.

Originally posted by Thundar
What do you think the end result would be, if you found out that the ideology you currently followed, was based on purposely misleading information?

Would you still hold on to your beliefs as firmly as you do now? Or would you continue to follow the same path, despite having a firm understanding of the truth that had been presented to you?

I'll answer these questions myself, as soon as I get a few responses from you all.


As promised here's my answer:

When one believes in absolute truth; they need not worry about following a lie, and can appreciate the opinions of the fools that surround them, so long as the opinions of these fools doesn't greatly impact the world around them.

Originally posted by Thundar
As promised here's my answer:

When one believes in absolute truth; they need not worry about following a lie, and can appreciate the opinions of the fools that surround them, so long as the opinions of these fools doesn't greatly impact the world around them.

PWNED!

I win teh thread!!!!!

Originally posted by Thundar
What do you think the end result would be, if you found out that the ideology you currently followed, was based on purposely misleading information?


I think you should be asking yourself that question.


I don't care if I am right or wrong. What works for me works for me, all I care is that I live a good life.




Originally posted by Thundar
Would you still hold on to your beliefs as firmly as you do now? Or would you continue to follow the same path, despite having a firm understanding of the truth that had been presented to you?



What would you do if you found out Jesus' resurrection never happened ? Would you still beleive ?




Originally posted by Thundar
I'll answer these questions myself, as soon as I get a few responses from you all.


MY real answer is that I don't subscribe to any beleif wholeheartedly.

I've been Christian for 18 years, and I do not miss it. I like Christian ppl, dont get me wrong, but the religion does not work for me. No religion really does.

I use Buddhism as a personal philosophy, but I do not beleive Buddha was 100% right about his findings, he after all, is just human, same with Jesus.

They are both just human men who acquired wisdom ahead of their time.


Albert Einstein was a genius...does that mean I will model my entire life after him, and let go of myself ?


Hell no




And to find out that we are wrong, will never happen... God has never revealed his form to us...ever. All we have are collection of myth and stories. God has not proven his existance.

Why would he do it now ?

Originally posted by Thundar
As promised here's my answer:

When one believes in absolute truth; they need not worry about following a lie, and can appreciate the opinions of the fools that surround them, so long as the opinions of these fools doesn't greatly impact the world around them.

Wow. You really fail. People answered this question in the 1600's.

1. You're a fool. Why?

2. Because you believe whatever you want, disbelieve whatever you don't and never take the time to actually examine if what you are doing is in fact correct. You are a bild dog that does whatever he is told. Romantic huh?

3. Just because one person is ignorant doens't mean that everyone else has to accomodate them. The world will be changed by the majority, regardless of your personal self-rightous opinons, and there is nothing you can do about it. People's rights stop when they infringe on the opinons of others, but the world is not to made for your 2-year-old perceptions.

Originally posted by Thundar
As promised here's my answer:

When one believes in absolute truth; they need not worry about following a lie, and can appreciate the opinions of the fools that surround them, so long as the opinions of these fools doesn't greatly impact the world around them.

Please answer the question. What if you found out all of what you believe was not true? What would you do?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please answer the question. What if you found out all of what you believe was not true? What would you do?

What if's are not really relevant to any question or discussion. The beauty of Theism is that you can not at present prove anyone they are wrong - if someone could, there would already be a contravertial proof.

Originally posted by Thundar
As promised here's my answer:

When one believes in absolute truth; they need not worry about following a lie, and can appreciate the opinions of the fools that surround them, so long as the opinions of these fools doesn't greatly impact the world around them.

Since "absolute" in the case of religion is highly relative (a hundred different claims, all with roughly the same amount of evidence supporting them) isn't that just like saying "ignorance is bliss" = "I happen to believe in absolute truth and as such I don't need to worry I am wrong or that I am following something that might not be true."



And if no one can be proved wrong then by rights no one can be right either, making the concept of conversion based upon "truth" an absurd concept. All religions are right by faith, none by fact.

Originally posted by Alliance
Wow. You really fail. People answered this question in the 1600's.

You're a fool. Why?


Because only the wise man understands that he is a foolish, and only the foolish man believes himself wise.

Originally posted by Alliance
Because you believe whatever you want, disbelieve whatever you don't and never take the time to actually examine if what you are doing is in fact correct. You are a bild dog that does whatever he is told. Romantic huh?


Originally posted by Alliance
Since Thundar's "hypothesis" (uneducated guess) was wrong from the start...this made this whole thread priceless.


Irony is usually not realized by those who produce it.


Originally posted by Shakamunison
Please answer the question. What if you found out all of what you believe was not true? What would you do?


I think you missed the point being made in my prior post. If one doesn't believe in truth being absolute, then they've already conceded that they are following a lie.

All of this being stated, I'll let this be my last post in this thread. As the initial question being posed has already been answered, as well as those that directly followed it.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think you missed the point being made in my prior post. If one doesn't believe in truth being absolute, then they've already conceded that they are following a lie.

So if a person fervently believes what they believe is truth and it is absoulte, but is in fact neither, is it still true, or are they merely being ignorant?

Man: The world is flat! I hold this as an absolute truth!

Absolutes are rarely nice things. You mentioned above wise men - back in the original days of philosophy "doubt" - in a wise context - was considered a virtue. To be open to the concept one is wrong is vital to learning and growing. An open mind behind reasoned conviction is far more praiseworthy then absolute opinion without room to grow.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think you missed the point being made in my prior post. If one doesn't believe in truth being absolute, then they've already conceded that they are following a lie.

All of this being stated, I'll let this be my last post in this thread. As the initial question being posed has already been answered, as well as those that directly followed it.

No, I did not miss your point, I just thought is was a cop out. You did not answer the question. All you did was say you are better then ever one else.

I know what you would do if your religion was to be proved wrong.

chimp

Originally posted by Thundar
Hmmm...I think what you've listed above actually supports my hypothesis, particularly since the young ruler was in a discontented state about life, much like Siddhartha Gautama was upon realizing the fickleness of worldly pleasures. No, it in no way supports your hypothesis.

Buddha lived a severely protected life, his father keeping as much age and death from him as possible. The Buddha thus had little if any concept of age or death, disease or sickness, no concept of suffering. The Buddha convinced his father to allow him an excursion into the city. His father spent a few weeks preparing the path that would be taken through the city, removing all blemish from it. The Buddha left the path upon sighting an elderly individual. He then came into contact with sickness, a funeral and a holy man. He questioned why such existed since they had not existed for him previously. He left his home, forsaking his inheritance and position (before he ever could have met any religious figure) and travelled, making his own conclusions as his experiences taught him. Given the distance between his homeland and Israel, there is little possibility he could have met Christ even if they had lived at the same time, on top of that, he had already given everything worldly up when he left his home. The Buddha was without worldly possession at the point he left his family, and he did not travel prior to that point as his environment could not be controlled by his father in the manner his father wished.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What if's are not really relevant to any question or discussion. The beauty of Theism is that you can not at present prove anyone they are wrong - if someone could, there would already be a contravertial proof.
Actually what if's can and oftentimes are very relevant.

Also, many aspects of faith can be disproven as well.

Just because right now it seems like God is impossible to be disproven scientifically it does not mean that that will always be the case.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think you should be asking yourself that question.


I don't care if I am right or wrong. What works for me works for me, all I care is that I live a good life.








What would you do if you found out Jesus' resurrection never happened ? Would you still beleive ?







MY real answer is that I don't subscribe to any beleif wholeheartedly.

I've been Christian for 18 years, and I do not miss it. I like Christian ppl, dont get me wrong, but the religion does not work for me. No religion really does.

I use Buddhism as a personal philosophy, but I do not beleive Buddha was 100% right about his findings, he after all, is just human, same with Jesus.

They are both just human men who acquired wisdom ahead of their time.


Albert Einstein was a genius...does that mean I will model my entire life after him, and let go of myself ?


Hell no




And to find out that we are wrong, will never happen... God has never revealed his form to us...ever. All we have are collection of myth and stories. God has not proven his existance.

Why would he do it now ?



Thundar, pleas answer....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Thundar, pleas answer....

Those who are blind cannot see...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Those who are blind cannot see...

Erm . . . the deepness of that is really superficial if you think about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm . . . the deepness of that is really superficial if you think about it.

It is just a saying, like you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If you ask why don't you just bring the water to the horse, you miss the point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is just a saying, like you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If you ask why don't you just bring the water to the horse, you miss the point.

I do get what your saying. I just think that stating that "a person who cannot see, cannot see" is funny.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do get what your saying. I just think that stating that "a person who cannot see, cannot see" is funny.

That is what helps me remember.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually what if's can and oftentimes are very relevant.

Also, many aspects of faith can be disproven as well.

Just because right now it seems like God is impossible to be disproven scientifically it does not mean that that will always be the case. Great point.