Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 12-24-2006, 12:10 AM

Jesus in England:

http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/v...ry/avalon.html

Still working on Samoa...

The Atheist · 12-24-2006, 01:29 AM

Pah!

You're all wrong, he was in Rotorua.

The Atheist · 12-24-2006, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenroad

I believe in light of the evidence this theory is absurd ... snip... think the evidence is very clear but i would love to hear what you have to say.

Hmm. The evidence is very clear that Jesus was resurrected?

What do I have to say on that subject? One word.

Bullshit.

premjan · 12-24-2006, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Yup...Good times...

Not you - the Doubting guy!

mountainman · 12-24-2006, 04:38 AM

google

adren@line · 12-24-2006, 04:47 AM

fact 1: If Jesus did exist, there was a period of time in which no one knows where he went

fact 2: If Jesus did exist, he was a revolutionary figure in the context of Semitic culture/theology, which was inherently violent and antagonistic.

Lets look at some other facts here:

It has been a staple of Indian esoteric sects to teach a few things, and those are:

1. Non violence.
2. God/truth is within you. Jesus stated that the "Kingdom of Heaven is within you".
3 That various Indian Gurus have claimed to be God after some mystical enlightenment or self-realization.

All of this is present within the teachings of Jesus and is further evidenced by the Gnostic Gospels which were selectively removed from the NT many hundreds of years ago by a zealous Christian leader.

The very nature of Jesus has been paralleled to both Buddha and Krishna to a lesser extent. He represents a radical departure from traditional Semitic theology (read the OT or Quran, both are extremely violent and antagonistic) while Jesus was pretty much the middle-eastern Buddha or Hindu Guru.

In other words, in the context of Indian esoteric sects, Jesus is just another face in the crowd and is hardly anything special. In the context of near-eastern religions at the time, and perhaps European, he was a revolutionary.

Based on all of this, there is no reason to doubt that he went to India to learn his radical approach, but there isn't much evidence (that I am aware of) so it cant be stated within certainty.

Again, his approach and many of his teachings are mirror-copies of Buddhist and Upanishadic thought. Anyone familiar with both will see the glaring similarities.

premjan · 12-24-2006, 04:56 AM

Maybe he thought up that stuff on his own. Besides these 'spiritual' ideas while not widespread in the middle east did exist there already - e.g. the Egyptian mystery religions though they didn't make it as big as in India.

And the similarity of Jesus to Hindu thought depends a fair bit on whether or not you include gnostic work, gospel of thomas etc., which is often rejected precisely for its stylistic dissimilarity with the rest of the gospels, lack of support for the church etc.

adren@line · 12-24-2006, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Maybe he thought up that stuff on his own

doubt it. The mystical sects of India existed atleast 1500 years prior to the birth of Jesus and no major figure out of the near east managed to match anything close to the complexity of the Upanishads until Jesus showed up.

Coincidence?

Quote:

Besides these 'spiritual' ideas while not widespread in the middle east did exist there already - e.g. the Egyptian mystery religions though they didn't make it as big as in India.

Im sure they existed on some small scale, but that is the exception and not the rule.

Quote:

And the similarity of Jesus to Hindu thought depends a fair bit on whether or not you include gnostic work, gospel of thomas etc., which is often rejected precisely for its stylistic dissimilarity with the rest of the gospels, lack of support for the church etc.

and they werent included in the NT for very biased reasons.

If you look at all Christian texts, Jesus was a Hindu/Buddhist Guru carbon-copy who molded it into his own Semitic theology. If you look at the biased European construct known as "Christianity" in the west, then it doesn't.

premjan · 12-24-2006, 05:08 AM

Usually Christian scholars say that the Gospel of Thomas, gnostic stuff etc. was actually manufactured by people following Hindu-type cults who wanted to make Christianity conform to it. They usually come up with some dates to support this as in gospel of thomas was of post-Jesus manufacture.

Wonder if his death is then a sort of 'abhimanyu' case where he didn't realize being spiritual would lead to his death - as he wonders at one point whether his God has forsaken him.

Again this sort of argument is made with respect to Sufism - claim that it originated with Muhammad though imparted only to some esoteric disciples and not to the others.

Lucretius · 12-24-2006, 05:12 AM

First of all you would have to ask yourself WHY would Jesus have gone to India (or anywhere else for that matter )
To learn from Eastern Mystics ?
Surely if he were the "Son of God" he wouldn't need to "learn" anything would he ?
Alternatively you could argue that he went to "convert" the locals in which case he hardly did a good job of it did he ,considering that there are no records of "Christians" in those regions over than in more recent times ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2006, 12:10 AM	#21
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Jesus in England: http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/v...ry/avalon.html Still working on Samoa...

12-24-2006, 01:29 AM	#22
The Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Auckland Posts: 108	Pah! You're all wrong, he was in Rotorua.

12-24-2006, 04:38 AM	#25
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	google

12-24-2006, 04:47 AM	#26
adren@line Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: California Posts: 2,615	fact 1: If Jesus did exist, there was a period of time in which no one knows where he went fact 2: If Jesus did exist, he was a revolutionary figure in the context of Semitic culture/theology, which was inherently violent and antagonistic. Lets look at some other facts here: It has been a staple of Indian esoteric sects to teach a few things, and those are: 1. Non violence. 2. God/truth is within you. Jesus stated that the "Kingdom of Heaven is within you". 3 That various Indian Gurus have claimed to be God after some mystical enlightenment or self-realization. All of this is present within the teachings of Jesus and is further evidenced by the Gnostic Gospels which were selectively removed from the NT many hundreds of years ago by a zealous Christian leader. The very nature of Jesus has been paralleled to both Buddha and Krishna to a lesser extent. He represents a radical departure from traditional Semitic theology (read the OT or Quran, both are extremely violent and antagonistic) while Jesus was pretty much the middle-eastern Buddha or Hindu Guru. In other words, in the context of Indian esoteric sects, Jesus is just another face in the crowd and is hardly anything special. In the context of near-eastern religions at the time, and perhaps European, he was a revolutionary. Based on all of this, there is no reason to doubt that he went to India to learn his radical approach, but there isn't much evidence (that I am aware of) so it cant be stated within certainty. Again, his approach and many of his teachings are mirror-copies of Buddhist and Upanishadic thought. Anyone familiar with both will see the glaring similarities.

12-24-2006, 04:56 AM	#27
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Maybe he thought up that stuff on his own. Besides these 'spiritual' ideas while not widespread in the middle east did exist there already - e.g. the Egyptian mystery religions though they didn't make it as big as in India. And the similarity of Jesus to Hindu thought depends a fair bit on whether or not you include gnostic work, gospel of thomas etc., which is often rejected precisely for its stylistic dissimilarity with the rest of the gospels, lack of support for the church etc.

12-24-2006, 05:08 AM	#29
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Usually Christian scholars say that the Gospel of Thomas, gnostic stuff etc. was actually manufactured by people following Hindu-type cults who wanted to make Christianity conform to it. They usually come up with some dates to support this as in gospel of thomas was of post-Jesus manufacture. Wonder if his death is then a sort of 'abhimanyu' case where he didn't realize being spiritual would lead to his death - as he wonders at one point whether his God has forsaken him. Again this sort of argument is made with respect to Sufism - claim that it originated with Muhammad though imparted only to some esoteric disciples and not to the others.

12-24-2006, 05:12 AM	#30
Lucretius Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: . Posts: 1,014	First of all you would have to ask yourself WHY would Jesus have gone to India (or anywhere else for that matter ) To learn from Eastern Mystics ? Surely if he were the "Son of God" he wouldn't need to "learn" anything would he ? Alternatively you could argue that he went to "convert" the locals in which case he hardly did a good job of it did he ,considering that there are no records of "Christians" in those regions over than in more recent times ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.