He can feel pain, huh? If he CREATED pain, why would he not be able to experience it? Nothing can kill god, but does that mean that he should give out different feelings without experiencing them firsthand? Its foolish to merely create something and NOT know what It can or will do. Like the guy who invented the gun, dont you think he knew that guns could make killing people a hell of a lot easier?

...What the heck is he talking about? Is he trying to say that JESUS was a BHUDDIST? I'm sory for offending anyone with this religion, but thats absurd.

We come from monkeys :) (I like monkeys)

http://thetruereligi..cle.php?articleid=14

This article explains alot and speaks about Islam in depth.

At 4/25/06 06:48 PM, MattMan1 wrote:

At 4/25/06 06:46 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Islam.

i agree it has been around for ages and has the most detailed bible

I wouldn't really call 1500 years ages, because well, christianity has been around for 2000, and well judaism is way older than either.

At 4/29/06 10:18 AM, Kamikaze-Boy wrote: ...What the heck is he talking about? Is he trying to say that JESUS was a BHUDDIST? I'm sory for offending anyone with this religion, but thats absurd.

If you have bother to study the gnostic scriptures, you would understand what I mean.

Plus take into account that Buddhism has been around for roughly 500 years before Christianity and it has been moving about, spreading it's message into various places like South-East Asia and East Asia. There is no telling if it could have also moved West into the true preachings of Yeshua. That Yeshua (Jesus's actual name, you stupid ass retard) was indeed a Buddhist missionary that came from and lived in the Roman Providence of Judea.

At 4/29/06 08:30 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 4/29/06 03:50 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: There is historical proof that jesus died on a cross and raised from the dead after three days, don't you think that is devine??

Then why don't you find and link to that proof, instead of just speculating? If it does actually exist (which I doubt) I'd love to see it.

And the gospel of judas isn't even written by judas, it is written around 200 b.c.

200 B.C.? Pretty amazing it managed to predict the birth of Jesus 200 years before he was even concieved! Maybe you mean 200AD, to which I ask when you think the other gospels were written?

Matthew was written about 100AD
Mark was written about 70AD
John was written about 120AD
Luke was written about 100AD

Source

note: i'm dutch so i meant a.d. , my source? The roman history writer: Tacitus, he certainly speaks about his crucifiction, and there are around 30 gospels written that means almost 30 scources of the rize of jesus

None of the scriptures were written by their proposed authors.

Luke wasn't written by Luke. And John wasn't written by John.

But all these accounts take the messages of the true "Jesus," Yeshua and bend it to their own beliefs.

If you really want to follow the true teachings of Yeshua then read this article.

According to proponents of a Buddhist/Jesus link, Jesus spent those missing years, the ages of 12 to 30 unmentioned in the Bible, under the tutelage of Buddhist monks.

http://crossedout.com/?cat=10

http://www.tombofjesus.com/news/FAQ/

http://www.tombofjes..2.htm#powerfulcharts

http://www.tombofjes..hism/buddhism-p1.htm

http://www.tombofjesus.com/ancient.htm

The proof that Jesus was a Buddhist. The link right above this sentence is of the ancient documents that prove Jesus or rather Yeshua, his true name, was indeed a Buddhist or rather converted to Buddhism and that he was trying to spread the message of Buddhism to the Jews.

At 4/30/06 05:30 AM, Dranigus wrote:

But all these accounts take the messages of the true "Jesus," Yeshua and bend it to their own beliefs.

how can you be so sure, you have only given some sites which give speculations about it, but it might have been that a follower of Jesus went to india to spread his message.
Could you perhaps give a list of books you used?

At 4/29/06 03:50 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: There is historical proof that jesus died on a cross and raised from the dead after three days, don't you think that is devine??
And the gospel of judas isn't even written by judas, it is written around 200 b.c.

So what... there is also historical proof of being medicated to surviving crucification.

Surviving such does not make you divine. The only thing that could make Yeshua truely "divine" is if went flying DBZ style.

If the Gospel of Judas was written before Judas even existed, then it's probably a prophecy. But that's not true, you dope like with the other gospels, Judas's scriptures were documented at around 300 AD, not 200 BC. And this isn't as farfetched as it seems for there is no evidence that the other gospels ever wrote their own crap or lived long enough to date such.

how can you be so sure, you have only given some sites which give speculations about it, but it might have been that a follower of Jesus went to india to spread his message.
Could you perhaps give a list of books you used?

It is unlikely a follower of Jesus went to India and spread his word there.

1) Hinduism hasn't change that much over it's whole existence and neither has Buddhism.

2) If a follower of Jesus, non-gnostic did went to India and was suscessful then Buddhism and Hinduism would be more reflected upon a supreme being than they are on reincarnation and they aren't.

So basically there is no proof that a christian went to India, other than for maybe trade reasons.

But there is evidence that Yeshua (Jesus) did went to India. Although it may seem like speculation, they are doing nothing more than determining Yeshua had ever existed. By trying to follow the interpretations and analysis they found in the bible. There is never going to be a definite say that Yeshua was indeed a Buddhist, due to fear of being attacked by die-hard believers of Yeshua being the son of god. And not some sort of everyday prophet like Muhammad, Buddha, Moses, and Abraham.

But if you must know if a Buddhist monk did venture about during the time of Yeshua, he would be seen as divine, by his peaceful and intellectual mind. But that's the sort of thing us Buddhists have.

At 4/30/06 05:30 AM, Dranigus wrote: The proof that Jesus was a Buddhist.

Why did he talk about God?
Why did he not talk about the Atman or Samsara?
Why did he not mention Siddartha Guatima?
Why was he able to perform miracles?

I don't think your idea holds. I'll look at the sources when I have some time.

At 4/30/06 04:51 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote:

note: i'm dutch so i meant a.d.

Sorry, didn't realise - your English is usually perfect, so I just assumed you were a native speaker.

my source? The roman history writer: Tacitus, he certainly speaks about his crucifiction,
Ok, so I found this:
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome" here

I see this as proof that someone who was called "The Anointed One" was crucifed, but not that Jesus of Nazereth actually existed.

and there are around 30 gospels written that means almost 30 scources of the rize of jesus

But the church only saw fit to publish four of these, three of which are synoptic. Why is this, do you think?

easiest religion to believe in?

probably atheism.

which says nothing as to which of them is really "true".

Any religion that gives equal rights to women is a approved by me...

At 4/30/06 02:21 PM, ThePrimogen wrote: Any religion that gives equal rights to women is approved by me...

Just correcting myself.

At 4/30/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

and there are around 30 gospels written that means almost 30 scources of the rize of jesus

But the church only saw fit to publish four of these, three of which are synoptic. Why is this, do you think?

because many of the gospels could be incomplete, or saying that christ was a witchdocter or something?

At 4/30/06 12:26 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 4/30/06 05:30 AM, Dranigus wrote: The proof that Jesus was a Buddhist.

Why did he talk about God?

He didn't talk about god, his followers talked about him talking about god.

Why did he not talk about the Atman or Samsara?

Because he was talking to Jews and trying to convert them slowly to Buddhism, so why would be bring those up? http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM

Atman was in the Rig Veda, which is a sacred Hindu book.

Now if you were talking about Buddhist Atman, that was talking about sins. And Yeshua did talk about sins.

'Atman' is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident

In other words, a sin to oneself of being naive that one is pure without sins. In our list of sins, that would be prideful.

Later schools of Buddhism such as the Pudgalavada, however, re-introduce the concept of a "person" which transmigrates. The basic idea that there is a cycle of birth and rebirth is, however, not questioned in early Buddhism and its successors, and neither is, generally, the concept that saCs ra is a negative condition to be abated through religious practice concluding in the achievement of final nirv Ga.

Talking about reincarnation was a big taboo and Yeshua did talk about such things. He just didn't spend his time aimlessly talking about it to people that wouldn't understand.

According to the scriptures from Judas, Yeshua talked about a divine land in which one can find freedom from the sins that plague everyday life. People mistook that of him talking about heaven, he was in fact talking about nirvana which is a mental state of no longer being cursed to live as a human and on this planet, which is hell.

Buddhism was founded on a rejection of such metaphysical substances, and originally accounts for the process of rebirth/reincarnation by appeal to phenomenological or psychological constituents

Or basically in Buddhism samsara was the principle of which kept you from going to nirvana, which was the indulgences of the physical world. Sins incase you didn't knew. But basically it wasn't the act of performing a sin, yet rather to treasure such so much that you are unable to leave the cycle of reincarnation on Earth.

And yes Yeshua did talk about such and he never brought up, Samsara or Atman. What he did was try to approach using what the Jews and such could understand from such terms. And what is written is what the followers viewed upon from what he said.

But the main point though was that Yeshua was a Buddhist and his monk like ways confused and enlightened his followers. But only a few actual accounts, from those that were altered by the Corrupt Catholic Church, known as the Gnostic Gospils identify what Yeshua was truely trying to preach.

Why did he not mention Siddartha Guatima?

He did, the fact that Buddha is looked upon in Christianity as being a prophet of god is a part of that fact.

Why was he able to perform miracles?

All Buddhist monks were believes to fly, perform miracles, berid demons and evil spirits, and do many other things. It's believe that since they were intoned to their spirit and mind more closely than that of an everyday person that they can control the very little mental and physical energy and do many great things. But these things are very little compare to what they could do if they had more evolved minds and bodies.

I don't think your idea holds. I'll look at the sources when I have some time.

Well maybe you should. Then maybe you'll understand who Yeshua was.

Well Islam as it is said, was an attempt to re-establish to true words of Yeshua. However... like with all religions, it became corrupt by certain factors. For one, it indorse lust in heaven, but perhaps that was all just a metaphor for the splendors of Nirvana that Muhammad was really talking about.

I'm sorry, but you'll understand why Buddhism is so attractive if you study the type that Muhammad and Yeshua had encountered.

i think christians took many pagan holidays and merged them with their own... copycats

At 4/30/06 06:49 PM, _TeenageMind_ wrote: i think christians took many pagan holidays and merged them with their own... copycats

And that's a good reason why Islam and Judaism is more peaceful-oriented than Christianity. Even though Muhammad could have very well been the reincarnation of Yeshua as Yeshua (Jesus) could have been the reincarnation of Buddha, whom in return could have been the reincarnation of Zoroaster, Abraham, and Moses and so on.

Methinks that I will have to take an Eastern approach to religion. All religions are a path to Enlightenment and God, and all Gods are one; I personally can't see everyone's "loving and merciful" God keeping some people out of heaven. Also, to me, Heaven is not a place, not a time, nor a state of mind, it is simply touching the perfection of God.

At 4/30/06 07:55 PM, SaintShade wrote: Methinks that I will have to take an Eastern approach to religion. All religions are a path to Enlightenment and God, and all Gods are one; I personally can't see everyone's "loving and merciful" God keeping some people out of heaven. Also, to me, Heaven is not a place, not a time, nor a state of mind, it is simply touching the perfection of God.

All fundamental religions are established to find enlightment and peace of mind and not to find god.

I mean here is the get-go of this whole thing. By the way this a good guideline to something that sort of is quite scary, but it does bring a spark to supporting the existence or reincarnation.

Around 5000 BC
Lord R ma is born and he creates a certral aspect of philosophy leading to Hinduism.

Around 4500 BC
Probable time Jainism is founded. (This is speculated and for all I know, this could have been the time some Native America Wiseman spread good faith all across meso-america)

Around 4000 BC
Unknown

Around 3500 BC
Unknown

Around 3000 BC
The primary aspect of philosophy leading to Hinduism is reintroduced by a regional lord named K[ichGa. This philosophy becomes corrupted by the invaded Aryans from the North that introduce principles such as the caste system.

Around 2500 BC
King Urukagina of Lagash establish the first Judicial Code, for which established a great decree of equality between men and women.

Around 2000 BC
Judaism started off about the principles of a single entity, not declaring if it was a god or a being at all. Yet rather the source of all of existence.

Around 1500 BC
Judaism gets re-established as Moses is born to straighten up things.

Around 1000 BC
Zoroaster is born to straighten up things.

Around 500 BC
Buddhism is born to straighten up things. Confucious philosophy and Taoism are born roughly around the same time as well. It's quite arguable that perhaps each may had influence one another.

Around 0 AD
Yeshua, Jesus is born to straighten up things.

Around 500 AD, Muhammad is born to straighten up things.

Around 1000 AD,
Moshe ben Maimon is born, the great Jewish Philosopher.

Around 1500 AD
Sikhism is founded, by Guru Nanak Dev whom is born to straighten up things.

Around 2000 AD
The new prophet is born whom shall lead the way to the most puriest and perfect religion, just in time as the Annunaki arrive. And you should easily recognize him for his mixture of being immature and yet wise at the same time. In Revalations it insists that the new prophet is the anti-christ.

Remember these time frame dates aren't exactly accurate. They refer to each half of a millennium.

Basically this guy constantly reincarnates to help clean up the kitty litter box known as humanity.

At 4/25/06 06:51 PM, GunCrave wrote: Deism is the only one that makes sense to me.

You're damn skippy! Best part about Deism: it can't be discredited.

At 4/29/06 08:30 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Source

Oh, would you look at that: a Wikipedia entry. So it must be true.

lol Sarcasm

At 5/1/06 08:30 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 4/25/06 06:51 PM, GunCrave wrote: Deism is the only one that makes sense to me.

You're damn skippy! Best part about Deism: it can't be discredited.

But what historical and scientific facts can we use to back it up?

Saddam Hussein was a Deist.

Hedonism!!!!

At least you'll have FUN!!!

At 4/30/06 04:52 PM, Dranigus wrote:

At 4/30/06 12:26 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 4/30/06 05:30 AM, Dranigus wrote: The proof that Jesus was a Buddhist.

Why did he talk about God?

He didn't talk about god, his followers talked about him talking about god.

dude, nobody will ever get 100% proof he's right, nobody will ever get close, it is still what you believe that is right. And as long as you live in the right way that jesus ment, even if he is a buddist or a Jew, it wouldnt matter.

But one last thing: why is it that Jesaja mentioned about jesus if he wasn't the son of god?

At 4/30/06 05:30 AM, Dranigus wrote:

The proof that Jesus was a Buddhist.

That's funny.

Because I don't remember anything about Jesus worshipping a statue of Buddha or making an offering of cigarettes to it.

At 5/1/06 11:33 AM, CorbanX wrote: Oh, would you look at that: a Wikipedia entry. So it must be true.

Oh, would you look at that: an appeal to ridicule. So it must be true.