Buddhism, Jesus & Christianity - Their Links

[healthcaretaker]

Earlier, I have discussed about Buddhism & Science.

Now I wish to discuss about Buddism, Jesus & Christianity. Probably many already knew.

There are found to have so much similarity between Buddhism & Christianity that there is a possibility that claims of Jesus being in India during his "missing years in the bible" carried more weight than myth.

I wonder what the others think ?

IF(a very big if here) it was true that Jesus studied Buddhism, he MIGHT have tried to start a new religion using his knowledge of Buddhism and the ancient belief opf GOD, simplified it to "believe in God & you go to heaven" to influence followers in a easier manner, add in the donations concept, you get a NEW & RICH religion. The Romans don't like it and take it as a SCAM and had him sentenced to death by crucification. Few days later, he woke up and ran back to India, and his followers take the opportunity to claim of his coming back to life and continued the religion to greater and stronger beliefs and followings. Thus, the bible was written; at a time when they don't expect science will discover the evolution theory or even the real shape of the earth many years later.

Oh....I forget to explain earlier that IF Jesus had been so capable of learning so much in Buddhism to start his own teachings; it will be no surprise that he had mastered the art of meditation well, survived on energy alone and escaped death. After all, none of his vital organs was stabbed.

Edited June 20, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[canuckamuck]

Not recommended for Christians because it requires a lack of knowledge of Christ to find this plausible.

For one thing, young Jewish working class boys from Nazareth were not known to go live in India. Had he been a merchant perhaps he may have had some exposure, but India is pretty far for a carpenter's son to go on walkabout. And he would have had to stay there a good many years to be able to have acquired such skills as living on pure energy after a crucifixion where he was examined and declared dead by Roman soldiers. And also his body was put through the burial rites and none of His friends noticed he was alive. Do you know any Buddhists under 30 that have reached this level of practice? Do you know any of any age that have?

Also He was crucified on the insistence of the Jews. The Romans wanted to let him go.

And then on to the fact that although he preached right living which is compatible with Buddhism, He also preached things that were distinctly not Buddhist. If He was such a highly enlightened Buddhist, why would He go on to create this scam, as you describe it?

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, he can't possibly have been in the USA preaching to the Indians and setting up the Mormon church at the same time now can he?

So who's speculation is less uncredible? and even if one or other of these "conspiracy" theories were true what difference would it make to someone practising the teachings of one or other teacher?

It's just a groping in the dark looking for something to attach onto due to a lack of faith. Lets get some evidence first, wouldn't that be more scientific?

A theory that might be more pausible is that the Greeks were throughout the middle east and north india since the time of Alexander the Great as a commericial/trading class and were both involved in the evolution of Buddhism and of early Christianity. If there was any cross pollination of ideas, and I say if, this is the most likely way it happened.

One example might be that while Buddhism has a very elaborate monastic system there is very little to support a monastic system in the Bible, and yet before long we see Christianity with a very similar monastic system to Buddhism, something we don't see in Islam or judaism.

[canuckamuck]

Well, he can't possibly have been in the USA preaching to the Indians and setting up the Mormon church at the same time now can he?

So who's speculation is less uncredible? and even if one or other of these "conspiracy" theories were true what difference would it make to someone practising the teachings of one or other teacher?

It's just a groping in the dark looking for something to attach onto due to a lack of faith. Lets get some evidence first, wouldn't that be more scientific?

A theory that might be more pausible is that the Greeks were throughout the middle east and north india since the time of Alexander the Great as a commericial/trading class and were both involved in the evolution of Buddhism and of early Christianity. If there was any cross pollination of ideas, and I say if, this is the most likely way it happened.

One example might be that while Buddhism has a very elaborate monastic system there is very little to support a monastic system in the Bible, and yet before long we see Christianity with a very similar monastic system to Buddhism, something we don't see in Islam or judaism.

Actually I am inclined to believe that Gautama Buddha had deep revelations on some of the same truths that Jesus later taught. In much the same way that Abraham and Job had revelations well before Jesus appeared in human form and before Judaism too.

[Xangsamhua]

I find the OP's obsessive hostility to Christianity tiresome. This is not the first time he's come on the board to grind his anti-Christian axe. It seems inappropriate to the Buddhism Forum. Still, it's up to mods to decide that.

The "Jesus Went to India" theme is not a new one. It attained some vogue in the late 19th century as Europeans became more interested in India and possible links with cultures to her west (a variation on the theme is the theory that the Buddha came from Iran). Holger Kersten wrote quite a persuasive book with that title in 1986, and yes, the heterodox Ahmadiyya sect of Islam do have a belief that Jesus died in Northern India. This belief has some plausibility if the Issa (Jesus) that the Ahmadiyya revere was the same as the historical Jesus revered by Christians. This will never be known, as the historical jesus is becoming harder and harder to find as the scriptural accounts of his "life" are found to be less and less plausible. There may have been an historical figure on which the gospel stories were based, but we know little if anything that points definitively to him. Even his hometown, Nazareth, is unlikely to have existed at the time he is said to have lived.

I really doubt a discussion on Jesus's historicity or possible migration to Northern India is appropriate to a Buddhism forum. Speculation on Buddhist influences on early Christianity may well be. Galilee was on a trade route, so there was no shortage of travellers with interesting stories and beliefs, perhaps using Koine Greek, which would have been usable anywhere along the road from India to Egypt. There was a pre-Christian form of monasticism in Egypt (where Christian monasticism had its origins). They were contemplatives and were known as Therapeutae. "Thera", as we know is a Sanskrit term meaning "elders", as in Theravada.

[healthcaretaker]

I think somebody missed the point or prefer to face the truth and prefer to live in the past; or rather in the dark.

First of all, why consider my OP as an act of hostility to christianity ? Take this for example; if I happen to be a judge and need to sentence my own father for a murder, will you consider it as an act of hostility to my father ? Do you mean that I should free him even if I know he is guilty ?

Don't we all hope that the world will unite and all religions will become one or even no religions required when the truth is found ?

Back to my OP, I hope some of you do not give unappropriate comments before you do a search and read the websites first.

Yes, I know it is a very controversial issue. I have asked some christian friends to ask their head of church or priest about it but the answer I received from them is simply they don't believe it so they don't ask or they are told NOT to believe in it.

Such replies made me more curious. If the church have some answers, why should they avoid it ? Their atitude gave the impressions that they actually believe the claims too or they have no reasons or answers to rebutt them, don't you think so ?

Before I explain further, just consider this:

How could there be so MANY similarities in Christianity teachings compared to Buddhism ?

Some of them are simply NOT coincidental. For eg, both Jesus and Buddha was born by a virgin mother. There are so many others, read them yourselves. If you cannot find the websites, come back and ask, I will provide the links.

If wikipedia and the www allows it, why shouldn't we discuss it here ?

We cannot avoid or pretend not to understand this simple logic. It's either:

a) Christianity copied ideas directly from Buddhism(If this is the case, you can figure out all the rest of the stories in the bible); or

both Buddhism and Christianity are not original, they have copied ideas from the same source(which is less believable)

This is nothing scientific.

canuckamuck,

I have all the answers to your questions. I will post them later.(if the moderators don't close this thread)

Edited June 21, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[jombom]

This seems to be an interesting thread.

However, I would like clarification on times and dates etc.

My understanding is that Hinduism was the dominant religion for many years before Buddhism gradually supplanted it.

So my question is, which came first, Buddhism or Christianity ??

[healthcaretaker]

This seems to be an interesting thread.

However, I would like clarification on times and dates etc.

My understanding is that Hinduism was the dominant religion for many years before Buddhism gradually supplanted it.

So my question is, which came first, Buddhism or Christianity ??

A bit off-topic but doesn't matter

Hinduism came before Buddhism, Buddhism came before Christianity(by around 500 years) and Islam came after Christianity by a few hundred years. Islam copied Christianity but "created" some older stories supposedly happened before Christ and add some stronger regulations and practices. That really pissed the christians as they cannot claim anything in the quran to be untrue. That is why christians and muslims are always at loggerheads.

[canuckamuck]

Just because some of the things the Buddha said were wise and full of truth does not mean that he is the author of that truth. Truth just is, anyone can uncover a truth and it may be an original thought even though others have uncovered the same truth.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God and everything that was created, was created through Him, including Buddha.

If Jesus was simply a man who created a religion then the entirety of Christianity is baseless, except for the wisdom of right living.

But if you see Jesus as God, it becomes ridiculous to try to piece together His influences as the academics do because His influence is purely and infinitely original. Either he is or He isn't.

If you do see Jesus as simply a man, How can you explain the massive impact He has had on the world, considering He taught for only three years, mainly to twelve guys who were nobodies, and spent nearly all of this time with non influential people. And he came from a family with no influence and died at 33.

[Brucenkhamen]

Truth just is, anyone can uncover a truth and it may be an original thought even though others have uncovered the same truth.

True.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God and everything that was created, was created through Him, including Buddha.

True again, but as this is a Buddhist forum you wouldn't expect anyone to be discussing a Christian perspective.

If Jesus was simply a man who created a religion then the entirety of Christianity is baseless, except for the wisdom of right living.

This seems a reasonable assumption from a Buddhist perspective, don't you think?

But if you see Jesus as God, it becomes ridiculous to try to piece together His influences as the academics do because His influence is purely and infinitely original.

Yes if one considered Jesus a God then it would make no sense to try and peice together his influences but why would you expect a Buddhist to believe that? As we are discussing a worldview that doesn't believe in God then it can only see him as a man, so it makes perfect sense that you should be able to peice together his influences.

Not that the theories presented in the OP make any sense from either perspective

[healthcaretaker]

Just because some of the things the Buddha said were wise and full of truth does not mean that he is the author of that truth. Truth just is, anyone can uncover a truth and it may be an original thought even though others have uncovered the same truth.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God and everything that was created, was created through Him, including Buddha.

If Jesus was simply a man who created a religion then the entirety of Christianity is baseless, except for the wisdom of right living.

But if you see Jesus as God, it becomes ridiculous to try to piece together His influences as the academics do because His influence is purely and infinitely original. Either he is or He isn't.

If you do see Jesus as simply a man, How can you explain the massive impact He has had on the world, considering He taught for only three years, mainly to twelve guys who were nobodies, and spent nearly all of this time with non influential people. And he came from a family with no influence and died at 33.

Did I mention the Buddha is the author of the "truth" or any nice things that Christianity's are similar are all authored by the Buddha ? I am saying all the similarities showed that Christianity claims MIGHT had been copied from Budhhism. How sure are you my theories cannot be true ? No, I cannot claim those are my theories, I just discovered from more and more websites about them.

Can't we all be more open-minded about it ?

In the first place Jesus, the man might not even have existed, so is the place Nazareth. Check out at www.jesusneverexisted.com I will not argue or debate with you here directly over Jesus or Christianity.

This is not the point of my OP. My points are Buddhism's link to them.

You need not be so defensive. I know it is hard for anyone to be told that what they have been believing for generations suddenly claimed to be untrue by someone.

If someday, someone can prove or give theories than can prove that Gautama never existed, I will not be defensive over it. I will be happy that some real truth are found.

[jdinasia]

I find the OP's obsessive hostility to Christianity tiresome. This is not the first time he's come on the board to grind his anti-Christian axe. It seems inappropriate to the Buddhism Forum. Still, it's up to mods to decide that.

I am right there with you on this one.

[canuckamuck]

Yes if one considered Jesus a God then it would make no sense to try and peice together his influences but why would you expect a Buddhist to believe that? As we are discussing a worldview that doesn't believe in God then it can only see him as a man, so it makes perfect sense that you should be able to peice together his influences.

Not that the theories presented in the OP make any sense from either perspective

I do realize the perspective that many of you are coming from and I was just giving the Christian perspective. The OP threw up a theory for debate and I responded with reasons for my disagreement.

I have no disagreement with anything you have said here.

I know it is a Buddhist forum, I occasionally drop by when my religion comes up or if I have a question. I try to be respectful but I know it irritates some folks regardless. I also know the thread will be closed if I say too much.

[canuckamuck]

Just because some of the things the Buddha said were wise and full of truth does not mean that he is the author of that truth. Truth just is, anyone can uncover a truth and it may be an original thought even though others have uncovered the same truth.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God and everything that was created, was created through Him, including Buddha.

If Jesus was simply a man who created a religion then the entirety of Christianity is baseless, except for the wisdom of right living.

But if you see Jesus as God, it becomes ridiculous to try to piece together His influences as the academics do because His influence is purely and infinitely original. Either he is or He isn't.

If you do see Jesus as simply a man, How can you explain the massive impact He has had on the world, considering He taught for only three years, mainly to twelve guys who were nobodies, and spent nearly all of this time with non influential people. And he came from a family with no influence and died at 33.

Did I mention the Buddha is the author of the "truth" or any nice things that Christianity's are similar are all authored by the Buddha ? I am saying all the similarities showed that Christianity claims MIGHT had been copied from Budhhism. How sure are you my theories cannot be true ? No, I cannot claim those are my theories, I just discovered from more and more websites about them.

Can't we all be more open-minded about it ?

In the first place Jesus, the man might not even have existed, so is the place Nazareth. Check out at www.jesusneverexisted.com I will not argue or debate with you here directly over Jesus or Christianity.

This is not the point of my OP. My points are Buddhism's link to them.

You need not be so defensive. I know it is hard for anyone to be told that what they have been believing for generations suddenly claimed to be untrue by someone.

If someday, someone can prove or give theories than can prove that Gautama never existed, I will not be defensive over it. I will be happy that some real truth are found.

I don't feel like I am being defensive, sorry if it came across that way. I am actually only mildly interested.

You were claiming that Jesus may have been influenced by Buddha Gautama, which is saying that the ideas were not from Jesus but from Buddha Gautama. How is this not claiming Buddha Gautama to be the author, unless you mean to say the Buddha also got his ideas from someone else.

Just now you used the phrase "copied from Buddhism" Which to me implies authorship.

[healthcaretaker]

Just because some of the things the Buddha said were wise and full of truth does not mean that he is the author of that truth. Truth just is, anyone can uncover a truth and it may be an original thought even though others have uncovered the same truth.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God and everything that was created, was created through Him, including Buddha.

If Jesus was simply a man who created a religion then the entirety of Christianity is baseless, except for the wisdom of right living.

But if you see Jesus as God, it becomes ridiculous to try to piece together His influences as the academics do because His influence is purely and infinitely original. Either he is or He isn't.

If you do see Jesus as simply a man, How can you explain the massive impact He has had on the world, considering He taught for only three years, mainly to twelve guys who were nobodies, and spent nearly all of this time with non influential people. And he came from a family with no influence and died at 33.

Did I mention the Buddha is the author of the "truth" or any nice things that Christianity's are similar are all authored by the Buddha ? I am saying all the similarities showed that Christianity claims MIGHT had been copied from Budhhism. How sure are you my theories cannot be true ? No, I cannot claim those are my theories, I just discovered from more and more websites about them.

Can't we all be more open-minded about it ?

In the first place Jesus, the man might not even have existed, so is the place Nazareth. Check out at www.jesusneverexisted.com I will not argue or debate with you here directly over Jesus or Christianity.

This is not the point of my OP. My points are Buddhism's link to them.

You need not be so defensive. I know it is hard for anyone to be told that what they have been believing for generations suddenly claimed to be untrue by someone.

If someday, someone can prove or give theories than can prove that Gautama never existed, I will not be defensive over it. I will be happy that some real truth are found.

I don't feel like I am being defensive, sorry if it came across that way. I am actually only mildly interested.

You were claiming that Jesus may have been influenced by Buddha Gautama, which is saying that the ideas were not from Jesus but from Buddha Gautama. How is this not claiming Buddha Gautama to be the author, unless you mean to say the Buddha also got his ideas from someone else.

Just now you used the phrase "copied from Buddhism" Which to me implies authorship.

Well, I am not a Buddhism or Christianity specialist but everything can be learnt from basics. If the basics are proven to be wrong or unreasonable, I will not believe in the rest. Just like when evolution was discovered, story of adam and eve and the theories of christian's god and heaven don't make sense, I will not believe in it, no science needed.

As for Buddhism, my knowledge is there may be more than one Buddha.

I mentioned Christianity MIGHT had copied from Buddhism. I am not 100% sure yet if Jesus even existed. I am still researching on it.

There are some possibilities:

1) Jesus MIGHT existed, have studied Buddhism and tried to start a new religion(which I mentioned in my OP above) but everything after he is dead was made up by others; or

2) Jesus was the main culprit. He started and prepared everything, got caught and punished but his followers managed to carry out the rest of the task; or

3) Jesus never even existed. Whoever started the christianity scam made it all up.

So my points are(to correct yr statement against me that I implied Jesus copied from whatever Gautama authored:

a) I don't mean that Jesus copied Gautama or Buddhism. It's more correct for me to say Christianity copied, not necessary Jesus; and

I use the word "Buddhism" theories rather than Gautama because Gautama might have learnt them from someone else, even god or a previous Buddha.

Of course, another possibility is BOTH Buddhism and Christianity teachings are similar in some ways because BOTH copied them from an older source. If this is the case, it don't make any difference on the truth(or fake) behind christianity which has claimed their god is the only god, don't you think so ?

It's always good to debate or find things out as long as there are no fights, don't you agree ?

In Buddhism, one of the first lesson thought is to teach anyone NOT to simply believe in what others say or teach just because it has a long history or followings, especially from traditions.

If I can contribute just a little to help christianity prove that their religion had been fake or a scam, I am sure the "understanding people", whether christians or not should be happy with what I have done; or at least for my efforts.:jap:

Edited June 22, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[canuckamuck]

Well you have a lot of theories, you missed one possibility, that Christianity is actually true.

Anyhow, I think with a little honest study you could probably find the answers you are looking for. But usually we just find what we want to find because who wants to disprove their own hypothesis? No fun in that.

[Mosha]

I don't subscribe to the humble carpenter, that was taught when I was a nipper. Carpenter = Tradesmen. In those days the equivalent of computer whiz kids. Joseph would not have been poor, unless he was a shit carpenter.

[rockyysdt]

In my experience when interacting with people is that a belief precedes debate.

Most with strong beliefs seek anything that will support their position and either dismiss or attempt to disprove anything to the contra.

Most of us have deep seated subconscious leanings often implanted at a very young age.

We often aren't aware of their existence or source, but are influenced by them in given situations.

Strong beliefs allow us to accept as fact without proof.

You here people often saying "they know the truth".

This perhaps is one factor which differentiates Christianity from Buddhism.

Every Christian must die before they can realize the existence of Gods paradise.

Practicing Buddhists on the other hand have the opportunity to free themselves from aversion, delusion, or desire and experience life in an enlightened way before they die.

This is very compelling, as there are no nasty surprises.

But then if Christianity turns out to be not what it is purported to be, then experience of eternal death won't yield any surprises anyway.

In terms of similarities, most religions seem to have commonality.

Most prominent are charitable nature, belief in something more, and the egotistical need to have a life after death. The thought of eternal death scares most.

Edited June 22, 2011 by rockyysdt

[SteeleJoe]

"It's not good to kill. We don't want folks running around killing others and the survivors taking revenge and where does it end? No, let's not have that.

Not good to steal. We want to keep our stuff and so that means we have to let you keep yours too. OK? Let's have no stealing.

Lying can lead to killing and other conflict. So can sleeping around...let's not do that.

Yeah, all that stuff is bad.

This dying things sucks too. Your life ands and then...nothing? How about we come up with an idea where it doesn't have to winf up like that?"

It's hardly odd if people in various parts of the world, at different times (and over generations -- I'm not suggesting such a conversation actually happened -- but maybe it did in some cave somewhere or around some fire) came up with these and other concepts that are similar to one degree or another. I'm not at all trying to argue the validity of either religion and I'm being deliberately simplistic but my point is that its ridiculous to think that these ideas could have come from only one source or even two (let alone that it's unusual for two sources to have come up with them). Or that religion was necessary for people to have come up with the ideas rather than idea existing before or independent of religion.

This post is right off the top of my head, without much care or thought and it's probably foolish and maybe even inappropriate for me to be so casual in my approach to such a serious topic but to be honest I find the OP and its premise to be somewhat lacking in anything to be regarded in a serious or scholarly way. I just couldn't resist addressing what I see as a glaring logical fallacy.

Edited June 22, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Xangsamhua]

In the first place Jesus, the man might not even have existed, so is the place Nazareth. Check out at www.jesusneverexisted.com I will not argue or debate with you here directly over Jesus or Christianity.

Keep it up. A good recent work is R. J. Hoffman, Sources of the ChristianTradition, Prometheus 2010. You might also like Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prometheus 2003. A magisterial study is Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God nor Man, Age of Reason Publishers 2009, which examines the different Jesuses of the Epistles and the Gospels and their respective founding myths. (NB Doherty, who self-publishes, is not accepted by many in the scholarly community as he is rather secretive about his own identity and background.)

There are some possibilities:

1) Jesus MIGHT existed, have studied Buddhism and tried to start a new religion(which I mentioned in my OP above) but everything after he is dead was made up by others; or

2) Jesus was the main culprit. He started and prepared everything, got caught and punished but his followers managed to carry out the rest of the task; or

3) Jesus never even existed. Whoever started the christianity scam made it all up.

1.Indeed, if Jesus was a somewhat unconventional Galilean Hasid, as some scholarsbelieve, he would very likely have enjoyed conversations with traders andvisitors passing through Galilee who were followers of the Buddha. Histeachings, though based on Jewish scriptural and legal traditions may well haveincorporated Buddhist and Hellenistic teaching and practice.

2.We simply don't know if Jesus intended to found a cult or simply had a following, as admired teachers did in those days, who sat at his feet and passed on his sayings. If this is so, these sayings were probably those collected in the sayings text known as "Q", which is not extant, but which provided a lot of common, non-Markan material for the Matthean and Lukan gospels. Also the Gospel of Thomas, discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945.

3.The term "scam" reflects a 21st century mind reading history backwards. Religious people in the 1st century did not set out to"scam", though they played fast and loose with texts by our standards. Even the mystery religions, which were entirely fabricated projections of the Hellenistic mind, were an advance on their predecessors and attained the loyalty of well educated and well intended people. Wishful thinking writ large, they indicate that for many people the boundary between hopeful fantasy and rational belief was very porous.

[Xangsamhua]

As for Buddhism, my knowledge is there may be more than one Buddha.

Both Theravada and Mahayana traditions teach that there have been many Buddhas. The Buddha known in his pre-enlightenment days as Siddharta is not the Buddha Gotama described in the Pali Canon, but the Buddha Vipassi who lived many years earlier. It was Vipassi who was a prince, isolated from grim reality till adulthood, who went out into the town and saw the sick, old, dead people and wandering sannyasin, etc, leading him to adopt the renunciate life. There is also considerable difference in view of when the Buddha Gotama actually lived. Richard Gombrich has argued for a date as late as 404 BCE, almost 80 years later than the conventional dating, which effectively means Gombrich's Buddha was not the man we thought he was, at least in terms of the events and relationships in his life.

So my points are(to correct yr statement against me that I implied Jesus copied from whatever Gautama authored:

a) I don't mean that Jesus copied Gautama or Buddhism. It's more correct for me to say Christianity copied, not necessary Jesus; and

I use the word "Buddhism" theories rather than Gautama because Gautama might have learnt them from someone else, even god or a previous Buddha.

Yes, early Christianity from within 20 years of Jesus' putative death had developed a life of its own and in multiple forms. The synoptic gospels did not emerge until the late 60s with Mark. Matthew and Luke probably in the 80s and 90s, and John, who presents a different portrayal again of Jesus, around 100 CE. Very little of what is ascribed to Jesus in these gospels is firmly believed to have actually been said by him or done by him. Most of the synoptic portrayal is based on texts, incidents and prophecies found in the Old Testament. The Gospel of John, however, while a breakthrough in Christian theology, is influenced directly by Hellenistic philosophy (especially the belief that God created through the "Word" - reason or science - and the word was God's son, incarnated in Jesus). So Jesus can't be praised or blamed for the words put in his mouth and the activities imaginatively attributed to him ("in fulfilment of the scriptures") by his followers (who were at one or two generations' remove from him).

Of course, another possibility is BOTH Buddhism and Christianity teachings are similar in some ways because BOTH copied them from an older source. If this is the case, it don't make any difference on the truth(or fake) behind christianity which has claimed their god is the only god, don't you think so ?

If, as Stephen Batchelor suggests, the Buddha as the scion of a prosperous North Indian family may have attended university at Taxila in the 6th or 5th century BCE it is quite likely he would have heard of the opposing views of Heraclitus (everything changes, there is nothing permanent) and Parmenides (nothing changes, change is illusory). These arguments would have led him to reflect on the nature of reality. Indeed, even if the Greek views hadn't permeated to Taxila (unlikely), the roots of the discussion could be found in the earlier Upanishads. Assuming both the Buddha and Jesus existed in the times they are said to have, and living as they did in regions influenced by or at least exposed to Greek and Hellenic philosophies it is highly like they would have absorbed these ideas and processed them for their own beliefs and teaching.

In Buddhism, one of the first lesson thought is to teach anyone NOT to simply believe in what others say or teach just because it has a long history or followings, especially from traditions.

If I can contribute just a little to help christianity prove that their religion had been fake or a scam, I am sure the "understanding people", whether christians or not should be happy with what I have done; or at least for my efforts.:jap:

I don't know think a Buddhism forum is a suitable place to try and score points off Christians, or the kind of people you have in mind as Christians. There are many different kinds of Christians, and many are highly intelligent and well-educated. You seem to be targeting a particular kind - simple-minded, unbending and ignorant. I may lead a sheltered life, but have come across very few that are really like that. However, if a person takes a faith-based stance, perhaps as a result of a personal revelation or the influence of some inspirational event or person, then academic argument may not cut much ice. One has to relate to the other on the other's terms, and that's not so bad, as long as one's own integrity is respected. We don't have to try and convert everyone.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

I don't subscribe to the humble carpenter, that was taught when I was a nipper. Carpenter = Tradesmen. In those days the equivalent of computer whiz kids. Joseph would not have been poor, unless he was a shit carpenter.

At the time, when confronted with a difficult Torah passage, the Jewish scribes used to say "There is no carpenter, nor a carpenter's son to explain it". "Carpenter" was a metaphor for "a skilled expert".

[sabaijai]

I agree with post #5, that the OP's main intent seems to be to indict Christianity. This is not a comparative religion forum. Also the theory that Jesus studied Buddhism has been done to death already. If Jesus didn't exist, then how could he have studied Buddhism anyway?