Christianity VERSUS Buddhism!!

[lulflo]

I was listening to the letter to the Hebrews from Paul today and heard an interesting definition of Faith.

Faith is being sure of your hopes and the certainty of what is not seen.

I had some kind of epiphany today (and for those who don't know me, let me assure you that I respect all others beliefs and opinions, I post not to argue or offend, but to ponder and participate).

It seems that this lifetime of the flesh is of little consequence. This is a theme found in Buddhism and Christianity. In Christianity, attachment to "the world of the flesh" is essentially futile because it is said that you should be able to give up your worldly possesions in order to enter the kingdom of God. I believe that Buddhism also professes that having no attachment is a key to enlightenment (based on my observations of Buddhism so far anyway).

Anyway this epiphany I had... I essentially realized that there is no reason to submit to temptation because I am only here on earth for a short time. I came into the world with nothing and will leave this world with nothing. What I have gained in this world will not be mine when I leave and so there is no reason to attempt to acquire any more than I have. There is no reason to be mean or malicious or selfish or to be upset that others don't understand me or like me. If I can recognize within myself all that I have just by living, there is no reason to be unhappy. I can maintain my body optimally without any effort on my part because my body is with me at all times and should not be neglected or overindulged (this is tricky when one submits to temptation). If I continually worry about the past or about what I will obtain in the future or about others' thoughts, opinions, etc or what "society" thinks, I will be constantly attached to these things. The real test is to maintain my spirit and be present enough to realize when I have gone astray from it.

Let the testing begin!

Farang - Larry

 

[heretic888]

Oh, dear.

Its always disheartening to see the Myth of Monolithism being perpetuated whenever Christianity, Buddhism, or any other world religion is being discussed (particularly when they are compared). Rather than going into a long drawn-out explanation, I shall copy-and-paste the long drawn-out explanations I gave elsewhere:

I would suggest Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist by D. T. Suzuki as a good starting point on understanding a more ecumenical view between Christianity and Buddhism. Another very interesting text, which I found useful as an adolescent, is A Taste of Water: Christianity Through Taoist-Buddhist Eyes, by Chwen Lee and Thomas Hand.

Perhaps before reporting what "Christianity" is really about, it would help to consult the writings and teachings of many of the faith's great saints and mystics --- Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Minucius Felix of Africa, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Denys the Areopagite, Boethius, Johannes Eckhart, Dante, Jacob Boehme, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Hildegarde of Bingen, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Paul Tillich, Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating, and so on.

The emerging body of wisdom tells a very different story than what most people are used to...

Hrmmm. Suddenly, Adlous Huxley's "perennial philosophy" comes to mind.

Well, I should bring three major points on this:

1) Not every Buddhist meditates. In fact, the vast majority don't. Anyone whose spent any duration of time in east Asia can attest to this. Likewise, not every Christian practices hesychasm, contemplative prayer, monastic meditation, or one of the many centuries-old Christian practices. That doesn't change the fact that they're still there. It also doesn't change the fact that most of the individuals historically recognized as "saints" or "sages" in the Christian faith(s) have been people that do just these practices.

2) It should also be mentioned that many of the ideas and concepts espoused by the individuals I cited above are also to be found, here and there, within the Bible (New Testament, to by exact). They just aren't openly taught or emphasized. As but one example, the Gospel of John, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Revelation of John are all loaded with Platonic and Gnostic imagery, terminology, and symbolism --- I mean, the Logos, anyone??

3) Also, its not so much as I'm saying that anyone is "wrong" per se. Rather, that there is more to the faith that what people commonly ascribe to it. In several of the authentic Pauline letters, the author is very adamant about this point --- drawing sharp delineations between "psychic" and "pneumatic" Christians. Again, very Platonic.

This all, of course, ties directly with the perennial philosophy elucidated by Adlous Huxley (and others). For some sources dealing with harmonizing Christianity with the perennialist position, see:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/mys/prenphil.htm
http://www.religioperennis.org/ChristianT.html
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1...ticscorner1.htm

At this point I also feel I should bring up a few wrinkles concerning a few misconceptions concerning both Christianity and Buddhism:

1) The notion that Emptiness, or shunyata, is somehow "complete nothingness" or a "rejection of fullness" is quite silly if you are even vaguely familiar with Mahayana Buddhism. Not to mention "negative theology" as a whole. For what its worth, a similar concept is found in many currents of Christianity --- such as the "dazzling darkness" of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Dionysius, the "great cloud of unknowing" of St. John of the Cross, the "ineffable Godhead" of Meister Eckhart, or the "Abyss" of Jacob Boehme.

2) The notion that the "Christian God" is finite, limited, and rationally "knowable" seems rather odd to me. Both what I was taught as a child and the Christian theology I have read during my life always lead me to the conception that God is "transcendent", "ineffable", "indescribable" and "beyond" human reason or conceptualization. Huh, silly me.

3) I think one of the arguments used to make Buddhism more compatible with Chrisitanity was to "Judaize" the Dharma. That seems rather odd to me. Forsaking one's family, friends and possessions to follow "the Way", viewing "the Law" as instrumental or temporary, embracing a life of celibacy and abstinence, or consuming the flesh and blood of a Godman to achieve "immortal life" don't sound particularly "Judaic" to me --- Platonic, Mithraic, and Pythagorean, sure. But, Judaic? Naw.

Meh. That's enough of my rambling for now. Tah tah.

Just something to think about.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmm.... for some reason, my post didn't update the thread.

 

[Seabrook]

The argument on her part for Christianity having hold over all other religions was that Jesus was the only one who performed miracles


I am a Christian. Jesus was not the only person in the Bible who could perform what we would consider "miracles".


I thought of a chapter that I had read recently stating that some Christians were like a flock of sheep, weak sheep that could not handle the pressures of life and therefore needed the concept of a God help them through life.


That is bogus. Christians who read, believe, and act on the Bible believe they can accomplish more in life and can do all things through Christ who gives them strength. Fear is tossed out, in place of power, conviction, and determination.


Christianity seems to be hoping for salvation and that it will come to them from God or/Jesus and that there will be eternal life after that,whereas in Buddhism humans make the best out of their present life and aspire to be the person they wish to be and live a 'free' life.


We aren't hoping for salvation. Once we have accepted Jesus into our heart, we are saved. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the crucifixion, Jesus' death, and RESURRECTION.


I know that Christianity is not all bad


What is "bad" about Christianity? Please refer specifically to the faith and the Bible.


I don’t know, maybe I'm biased here but I see Buddhism as showing people the way to perfecting and improving themselves morally and physically and trying to sort out the imperfections in their life as well as trying to eradicate the suffering they feel or may in fact cause.


Perfecting is a big word. Do you know someone who is perfect.


Also with the fact that Buddhism actually points out what causes suffering and how to eradicate it as well as other issues in life, it goes deeper than Christianity which seems to state that suffering is a part of life and is a test of faith from God.


Where did you come up with this theory? Yes, there are times when God will test us (but He will never give us more that we cannot handle), but in a lot of cases, suffering is caused by human beings by our own pride and free will.


Kind Regards

C.H

P.s That post was toooo long! phew:whip:

Please see my comments to your statements and questions above.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Seabrook]

The fact that much of the supposed "facts" of the bible are without outside proof is of no concern to them.

Hi Bob,

That is completely false.

Sorry.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[heretic888]

That is completely false.

Hi Jamie,

It is completely true.

Sorry.

Heretic888

P.S.: Ain't just-so platitudes a grand thing??

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hi Bob,

That is completely false.

Sorry.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

With respect,

Without using the Christian Bible:
- Prove Jesus's existence.
--- Acceptable information would be records kept by the Romans, the personal accounts of verified existing individuals, or verified lineages.
--- The works of Josephus has been debunked as unreliable and compromised. (Previous discussions from hell)

Much of the stories (The Flood, The Virgin Birth, etc) are extremely similar to earlier stories from other religions.

The Apostles writings show a distinct lack of familiarity with the geography of the area, and the customs of the people.

See http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10609 (or do a search for Jesus here and look for the really bloody long threads. LOL) for more info.

The lack of proof does not negate faith IMO.
It simply means, we have no proof.
Remember, Troy was a myth for centuries as well....

 

[Seabrook]

With respect,

Without using the Christian Bible:
- Prove Jesus's existence.
--- Acceptable information would be records kept by the Romans, the personal accounts of verified existing individuals, or verified lineages.
--- The works of Josephus has been debunked as unreliable and compromised. (Previous discussions from hell)

Much of the stories (The Flood, The Virgin Birth, etc) are extremely similar to earlier stories from other religions.

The Apostles writings show a distinct lack of familiarity with the geography of the area, and the customs of the people.

See http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10609 (or do a search for Jesus here and look for the really bloody long threads. LOL) for more info.

The lack of proof does not negate faith IMO.
It simply means, we have no proof.
Remember, Troy was a myth for centuries as well....

Ok. But please understand, I don't want to turn this into a keyboard war, I simply want to declare what I believe to be truth. BTW - Bob, I like you, my friend, and respect you very much.

Here are some interesting points from Lee Strobel's book, The Case For Easter, whom by the way, did not believe in Jesus' claims until he investiagted the evidence thoroughly.

Let's start with the medical evidence.

• Roman floggings usually consisted of a minimum of 39 lashes
• The soldier would use a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them
  
• The whip also had pieces of sharpe bone which would cut the flesh severely
  
• The back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep cuts
  
• The whipping would have gone all the way from the shoulders down the back, the butocks, and the back of the legs
  
• Jesus would have been in serious to critical condition even before the nails were driven through his wrists and feet
  
• Historians are unanimous that Jesus survived the beating that day and went on to the cross
  
• The Romans were experts in killing people – that was their job. They knew without a doubt when a person was dead. The spear settled the issue once and for all.
  
• Jesus payed the death penalty that we deserve because of our rebellion against God. That was his whole mission in coming to earth.
  
• Dr. William D. Edwards published an aricle in JAMA (high impact medical journal, highly cited) in 1986, and concluded, "Clearly, the weight of the historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted"

The evidence of the missing body:

• Jesus was seen dead, and then he was seen alive once more
• Mark is generally considered to be the earliest gospel
  
• Jesus was buried in the tomb
  
• Jesus’ tomb was guarded and even the Jews agree to this
  
• The evidence is firm that the tomb was found empty
  
• Women who were friends and followers of Jesus discovered the empty tomb.
  
• When you understand the role of women in 1st century Jewish society, what’s really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. This shows that the gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing
  
• Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in 1st century Palestine
• The disciples had no motive to steal the body and then die for a lie, and certainly the Jewish authorities wouldn’t have removed the body

The evidence of the appearances:
<U>

​

• </U>
• Did Jesus die on the cross? Yes.
• Did Jesus appear later to people? Yes.
  
• Christ appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve
  
• After that, he appeared to more than 500 people at the same time
  
• After that, he appeared to James, then to all the apostles
  
• He also appeared to Paul
  
• The earliest Christians didn’t just endorse Jesus’ teachings; they were convinced they had seen him alive after his crucifixion. That’s what changed their lives and started the church
  
• According to church tradition, Mark was a companion of the eyewitness Peter
  
• The 1 Corinthians 15 creed predates any of the gospels, and makes huge claims about the appearances. In fact, the claim involving the biggest number (5000 people at once) goes back to the earliest source!

<U>Conclusion

• ​
  • </U>
    ​

The disciples proclaimed the resurrection to their deaths for one reason alone: they knew it to be true

If Jesus really is the Son of God, then your eternity hinges on how you respond to him. As Jesus said in John 8:24, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

So . . . where's the evidence?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Jamie,
I do respect your beliefs. Several of my closest friends are Christians, and we've had long, sometimes heated, sometimes in-depth discussions of things. (I think at one time I owned 5 different, well read bibles.)

My only point is, that there is no evidence, outside the bible, of his existance. There is only material that has so far, been disproven.

Some examples:
- We have proof that Julius Ceasar lived. There are numerous historical records, monuments, campaigns, tales from other cultures, etc.
- We have proof that Troy existed. The ruins have been found.
- We have proof that Mohammed existed. We have his decendants, his tomb, and historical records.
- We have proof that Plato existed. We have his writings, and other 3rd party accounts, as well as historical records.

Where Jesus is concerned, we have nothing outside the Bible.

But as I said, a lack of proof does not negate beliefs. So, let's look at some side-thoughts:

- Is is likely that 4-12 guys could come up with a hoax that would hold up for 2 milenium? I doubt it.

- Someone wrote those gospels, the letters, etc. There's obviously a missing part to them. (The responses, the initial contacts, etc).

- Lack of physical remains is not proof of non-existance.

- Lack of ruins is not proof of non-existance.

- Much of the history of the region lies buried under the sand. There are classified satelite photos that indicate ancient roads, and ruins in the Mid East.

- The locations of Sodom and Gammorah are believed to have been found, with evidence of nuclear attack.


So, my desire is, not to 'debunk' beliefs, but to expand historical knowledge. Are there any reliable sources? Most that I've seen have been debunked. But, debunking a source, doesn't in itself debunk a belief.


Course, sometime in the next 75 years, I'll get my own answer.
Anyone advise me on the SPF factor I'll need?

 

[heretic888]

Bob,

One of the major arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth --- which Jamie's post also seems to rely heavily upon --- is the notion of Christianity spreading like magical wildfire during the first two centuries CE, based on eyewitness experience and conviction of his supposed disciples. Thus, it is argued, Jesus had to have existed and had to have appeared to others after an apparent execution because, very simply, there would be no other way to explain the existence of Christianity.

This, of course, also all rests on the same series of self-confirming ideological structures for which there is also no corroborating evidence. We have no evidence that "the Twelve" even existed, nor do we have any reason to believe that Christianity has its origins in the first century. The notion that Christianity began in the first century among a handful of devout apostles is, again, an assumption that rests upon the Biblical narrative. We have no more reason to believe these presuppositions than we do to believe Jesus exists.

Ergo, this is the same old circular logic that so much of Biblical apologism rests upon:

"The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Why, you ask? Because the Bible says its the inerrant Word of God, of course."

Likewise, with Jesus:

"The apostles, based on their eyewitness experience of the resurrected Jesus, went out and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean. Why, you ask? Because the Bible says they did so, of course."

Its all part of the same self-confirmatory paradigm. Saying the apostles went out, spread the Word, risked their lives, died as martyrs, and so on rests just as much on the Biblical story as anything that can said of "Jesus Christ". And, like Jesus, we have no corroborating historical evidence to validate that these individuals did any such things. In fact, Christians and Christianity aren't even mentioned by Roman historians until roughly 110 to 120 CE --- well into the second century.

The idea that proto-Christian elements were littered throughout the Mediterranean prior to the first century is not any radical or bizarre claim. Let's read Philo's description (circa 15 CE) of the Alexandrian Therapeutae, who so closely resembled later Christians that the Church historian Eusebius (circa 300 CE) mistakenly claimed them to be the first followers of Christ. Let's read the existing fragments of the pre-Christian Books of Enoch, whom feature a supernatural Redeemer figure that is described as the "Son of Man", "Lamb of God", "God's Word", who has come to save the world from sin and destruction. And, of course, let's not forget the testimony of early third century Christian philosophers like Minucius Felix of Africa, who flatly denies that he and his brethren worship "an executed criminal" or an "accursed piece of wood" (instead, their "Christianity" was a Platonic philosophy based on the figure of the Logos).

All of the available evidence points us to the fact that the literalist Christianity we all know and loathe has its origins in late second to early third century Rome, in the hands of proto-Catholic apologists like Irenaeus (circa 190 CE) and Tertullian (circa 210 CE).

Laterz.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

See, thats kinda my point. There is no real "proof" yet, it had to have come from somewhere. Lets look for a moment...the Popes. Wasn't one of the 12 the 1st pope? Is there a tomb? How did Christianity survive the fall of the Roman world?

Some see my questions as an attack...they are Far from it. I'd honestly like to know.

 

[heretic888]

See, thats kinda my point. There is no real "proof" yet, it had to have come from somewhere.

In all likelihood, the earliest elements of "Christianity" as we would call it most likely have their origins in Alexandria, Egypt. There are many subtle hints in the Gospel narrative of this, such as with the Lord coming "out of Egypt".

When one looks at the documented history, you see that "Christianity" of one form or another was most widespread and pervasive in Egypt and surrounding nations like Asia Minor, Syria, and so on. By contrast, it is virtually unheard of in Judaea (where Jesus and his Apostles supposedly preached in the first place).

St. Clement of Alexandria also ties the authoring of various gospels attributed to Mark in Alexandria.

Lets look for a moment...the Popes. Wasn't one of the 12 the 1st pope?

According to Church tradition, St. Peter was the first pope.

Is there a tomb?

Probably.

But, the thing is, there are a lot of historical "relics" and "tombs" that have been bandied about by the Church at one time or another. The wife of Emperor Constantine claimed to have found a piece of the cross that Jesus was crucified upon, which has subsequently been proven to be a fake. Likewise, many charlatans throughout Church history claimed to have the "bones" of St. Peter or St. Paul (they were usually the bones of farm animals), and so on. Then, of course, there's the infamous "Shroud of Turin" (almost universally believed by experts to be a creation of the 14th century).

So, you have to take such claims with a very hefty grain of salt.

How did Christianity survive the fall of the Roman world?

Most likely because Christianity was not restricted to Rome.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

I'm not saying Christianity or Buddhism is correct or right or true, but this latest discussion brings up a question.

Why must there be "proof" of either religions accuracy? And if there is "proof" does would it really make or break those who believe in said religion?

7sm

 

[Southwell]

Bob,if your looking for proof of Jesus and his existence outside of the Holy Bible,then just turn to the Qur'an (3:42-47). Why would another religion mention him in there Holy book if he didn't exist ? Being a Christian I've had many people who have never read the Bible argue if the Bible is the word of God. Have you read the Bible ? Bob if you haven't then with all do respect I suggest you do so before investing in any SPF factor. Blessings Scott

 

[7starmantis]

I think he stated he has read it several times.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

Why must there be "proof" of either religions accuracy?

This isn't about religious or spiritual authenticity, its about historical accuracy. And, as far as I'm concerned, the two don't have any direct relationship whatsoever (whether positive or negative).

And if there is "proof" does would it really make or break those who believe in said religion?

I leave that up to the individual practitioner.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Bob,if your looking for proof of Jesus and his existence outside of the Holy Bible,then just turn to the Qur'an (3:42-47). Why would another religion mention him in there Holy book if he didn't exist ?

Probably because it was written around five or six centuries into the Common Era.

It also flatly contradicts the Christian Bible in regards to certain details of Jesus' life. For example, in the Koran, Jesus didn't really die on the cross, he merely "appeared" to.

Being a Christian I've had many people who have never read the Bible argue if the Bible is the word of God. Have you read the Bible ?

Yup.

Also, I should mention that it is a logical fallacy to imply that the opposition only believes what they do because they haven't read/listened/experienced X. In fact, this is a very common ploy in politics.

Laterz.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I've read several different bibles. I've read parts of the Talmud (sp?), the Qur'an, the works of Og Mandino, CS Lewis, and a few others I can't recall. I spent 2 years hanging out with my high school bible club (great chess players), a year attending 1 of their churches, and have had continuous contact with some majorly devout believers, and the associated discussions. I had the pastor of 1 church comment to me that it's a pity I wasn't a member as I knew scripture better than half his congregation. But, I'm like Thomas, I want proof. And, I'm not saying this in a malicious manner. I have no desire to break anyones beliefs. Many times, I ask questions that I already have an answer to. I'm looking for a different one, or the same one, or a path to a new question.

My own current path has lead me from the Episcopal church, to agnostism, to atheism, to Satanism, to Born Again Christianity, to agnostism, to Naturalism, to Wicca, to Paganism, to Taoism, to Zen, to Hinduism. Each stop has answered and created more questions, opened more paths and continued to widen my view of the universe we live in.

So I ask questions, seek data, and along the way, continue to modify my knowledge base.

Understanding the historical or scientific aspects of things need not destroy faith. I know scientifically that there are no magical properties to my silver ankh, or my quartz crystals. But, they give me comfort none the less.
And that, in the end, is what I believe religion is, a means to guide you and comfort you in times of need.

 

[Seabrook]

Some examples:
- We have proof that Julius Ceasar lived. There are numerous historical records, monuments, campaigns, tales from other cultures, etc.
- We have proof that Troy existed. The ruins have been found.
- We have proof that Mohammed existed. We have his decendants, his tomb, and historical records.
- We have proof that Plato existed. We have his writings, and other 3rd party accounts, as well as historical records.

Where Jesus is concerned, we have nothing outside the Bible.

Really?

Josephus wrote about Jesus and was born in 37 AD, a few years after Jesus' time. Josephus' writings offer the earliest references to Jesus outside of the Bible.

Here is a quote (that hasn't been changed) from his earliest writings:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

I also came across this recently:

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

What Josephus Tells Us
What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:

Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.
​

(Luke T. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).
F.F. Bruce breaks it down thus:

We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.
​

(F.F. Bruce, op. cit., page 112).
In summary, Josephus confirms the accuracy of the Canonical Gospels (and Acts) in the following recollections:
• The time frame that the Gospels place Jesus in,
• Jesus had a reputation for teaching wisdom,
• Jesus was believed to have performed miracles,
• Jesus had a brother named James,
• Some Jewish leaders were involved with Jesus' execution,
• Pilate was Prefect and had Jesus executed,
• Jesus was executed by crucifixion,
• Jesus was known as a messianic figure,
• Jesus was the founder of Christianity,
• Acts' portrayal of James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church is confirmed,
• The existence of early Jewish persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and,
• That the early Christians reported that Jesus was raised from the dead as foretold by the Jewish prophets (based on Eisler's reconstruction and Mason's comments on linguistic similarities).

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

​