That's a misconception created by the men who wrote the rumors that constitute the New Testament. They believed that and so that's what they wrote. But they were mistaken.

Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. Yes, what he taught was indeed the way to God. But it was not unique to him. This was a misunderstanding of the men who wrote these rumors. They were trying to make Jesus out to be a demigod (their "Christ")

Jesus was not the "Christ" that they thought. There is no such thing as "The Christ". That is a fable that came out of the old folklore of the God of Abraham.

Even the Jews could see the fallacy in these rumors.

So it simply isn't true that Jesus is the "only way" as those biblical rumors claim. That's just simply false. Once you get past that, then maybe you can begin to see that what Jesus had taught is being taught all over the place in many religions and spiritual philosophies, and had also been taught by others long before Jesus was ever born.

You've fallen for a bunch of hearsay rumors.

Yes, OF COURSE, following the actual moral teachings that they attributed to Jesus himself. You could follow the teachings of Buddha just as easily, they are one in the same teachings.

But there's no need for all this religious bigotry trying to put the power of the teachings of Jesus onto those ancient Hebrews.

Jesus was not then, and will never be the BRIDE of Israel. Those men had some really arrogant ideas that God was in love with them or something.

Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. Not the demigod of the God of Abraham. That's just more copying of Greek Mythology is all.

You claim Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist, but you have failed give some teachings from them stating specifically Jesus. You've only mentioned your speculations on this situation, nothing to back such an accusation. Yes the teachings may have been similar, but that does not mean they were the exact same and that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist.

It's absolutely obvious that Jesus wasn't a Buddhist, his insights into Judaism were earth shattering. He was allowed to teach in synagogues, which means that nobody disputed his being a Jew. And Jesus was executed for Blasphemy, a crime which the Jews would have only convicted another Jew of committing.

it is amazing how ignorance, in it's plight to prove itself wise, will compare itself to primitve words from 2000 years ago, as the tell of what exist now in itself, for itself, and for all other's.

such would be no different than using a book of how to slay dinasaurs, as the self guide of how to live now.

sheer unsanity.

but, then that is precisely what is being created, by that which is hasty to prayer and request of itself, for a holy spirit.

to use a history book, to prove to self how self is HOLY, is as ludicris and unsane, as using cooking book to prove to self that itself "taste great".

if one needs a book to prove to itself, what exist, what is good, what is bad, who itself is, who itself is not, it prove itself half unsane already, proving itself not in control of it's own mental facaulties.

these shall come to be guilty of the same delusional assessments that made another human assassinate john lennon, that used a book for the guidence of what reality was for itself.

zombies that see a book, as more alive than alive humans, but marching to the self gain prayers of self as holy, even whilst they run swords thru their own fellow man, and lap the flesh and blood of other's from their teeth, for these that had itching ear's but to prove how self was good and vindicated and justified and holy, only fell prey to but using the words of what was LIKE ITSELF, to prove such as true to itself.

for it shall come to be, that if the whole world and all words in the world, do not prove what self knows as correct, even most ones own enemy as the final authority, than self justification shall self rationalize itself into unsanity.

in these days, the most valued possession on earth shall come to be
the information of how to access and weigh self's own sanity, as sanity be washed and eroded from the self validating brains more each day.

Of course Jesus was a Jew. That's not even in question.

Of course he was highly educated in the Torah and Judaism. That's not even in question either.

He was clearly attempting to teach the wisdom of Mahayana Buddhism within that framework. And this is not the least bit unreasonable, on the contrary it makes perfect sense.

The first thing you need to do is toss out all your preconceived labels and notions of what constitutes "Judaism" or "Buddhism". Those labels wouldn't have even applied in those days.

There were many Jews who were mystics at that time. Jesus was a Jew, therefore he very well could have also been a mystic. Many people who studied spirituality back then embraced many views. Judaism back there was not like "modern Judaism" is today. Judaism continued to evolve over the years just like Christianity did.

Jesus most likely saw the similarities in many of the parables and moral stories of Torah compared with the wisdom from the Far East (which he may have not even thought of as "Buddhism"). He simply saw this as an extension of the same spiritual ideals that come through in many of the biblical stories.

Yet, at the same time, he clearly saw flaws in the Torah. There an be no doubt about that because it was precisely those flaws that he was attempting to clear-up.

If you ever get a chance listen to what people like Deepak Chopra have to say about Jesus. Deepak wrote a book about this called "The Third Jesus". Then recognize that Jesus was probably as intelligent and as well-educated as Deepak Chopra.

To think that Jesus would have been a narrow-minded fool who only studying one religion with blinders are would be silly. If you're going to give Jesus credit for being a wise man you need to recognize that he was probably well-educated in spirituality of all forms that were available in his time.

There are many parallels between the spiritual parables in the Torah and the wisdom of the Eastern Mystics. But at the same, the Torah also clearly contains absurdities and nasty stuff that has been added by man.

I'm sure that Jesus recognized this and he was attempting to use the good parts of the Torah to illustrate true wisdom whilst renouncing the bad parts. He knew that he couldn't just renounce the Torah altogether that would be utterly foolish because there is no way that his fellow Jews would buy into that. He had to try to work his teachings into the framework of what the Jews had already been taught to believe.

Moreover, once you fully grasp this realization then you also suddenly realize that the New Testament is NOT the teachings of Jesus in whole, but rather only as distorted hearsay rumors of men who clearly had an agenda to portray Jesus as "The Christ".

Once you make that realization then you can stop viewing the New Testament as the "Word of God" and start to recognize it for what it truly is - Biased hearsay rumors with an agenda to make out like Jesus was a demigod.

As long as you cling to those biased hearsay rumors verbatim as the infallible "word of God" you'll never get past that.

We can clearly see that they are indeed fallible, inconsistent, contradicting, and basically impossible to be true. So to continue to cling to the idea that they are absolute true verbatim is an exercise in futility.

Jesus wasn't "taught" or "studied" with anyone of any belief. What you're trying to claim is hearsay, for all the information of Jesus' life we have is in the holy bible. Jesus was preaching at the age of 12, so where in that time did he have time to "study" a particular belief.

First off, you're falling in the trap of believing that everything that is written in the New Testament is necessarily true.

If the New Testament is, in fact, just hearsay rumors with an agenda it could contain countless lies and exaggerations. Moreover, if Jesus truly was teaching by the time he was 12 then clearly he did have time to study previously. And that's not the least bit unreasonable. Children as young as 6 years old or earlier can engage is some pretty heavy studies and compression. In fact, Jesus probably was some sort of genius and early bloomer. We've seen example of this sort of thing in many mortal humans.

But like I say, if the New Testament truly is just hearsay rumors with an agenda to support the idea that Jesus was a demigod then the people who wrote these things could have easily made up those kinds of things. Look at any mythology from the Mediterranean region and you see this sort of thing all the time.

In Greek Mythology Artemis was born only a few moments before her brother Apollo yet Artemis "assisted" in her brother's birth was was problematic for their mother.

So you see, these kind of fables and rumors were commonplace back then. People were opening to believing truly outrageous things.

The thing that amazes me is how many modern day educated people still fall for these ancient fables of demigods and stuff.

And for what purpose?

Because they LUST for eternal life.

And so they cling to these myths with great tenacity in spite of all the absurdities, contradictions, male-chauvinism, blood-sacrifices, etc, etc, etc.

They Linus in Peanuts they can't live without their security blanket. So they keep beating the dead horse in the desperate hope that someday it will get up and walk.

No, I just have to look at what historians say Judaism in Palestine was like when Jesus was alive.

Buddhism was in Palestine when Jesus was alive and preached on the street corners, city gates and city squares, as all religions were during that time period. There wasn't Rabbi's who always spoke at the Synagogue, Jewish men of the right age were allowed to speak in the Synagogue on Sabbath. Jews wouldn't have allowed a Buddhist, even a Jewish born Buddhist, to teach in a synagogue. So you are at best, claiming that Jesus was a liar who pretended to be a faithful Jew in order to spread his new religion. Are there no depths to which non-Christians won't go to challenge Christianity? Claiming that Jesus wasn't really Jewish in religion, he was really a lying Buddhist, doesn't seem like such a powerful argument. Your proof? Your opinion and nothing more. Not even worth responding to, but I did it just this once to help out anyone who might be so ill-educated as to believe this hokey story.

Were there any lessons that Jesus taught that weren't based on the Old Testament? If so, then please tell me what they were.

Well guess all the murderers found in prison that were convicted from eye witnesses are actually innocent because what those witnesses said would then be hearsay. Very good, think you should run to be a judge in a court room. I'd say alot of people will like you lol, claiming someone giving a first person account of the action is hearsay. Alot more people would be innocent.

Oh absolutely there were lessons that Jesus taught that weren't taught int he Old Testament. To begin with he taught not to stone sinners to death. That's not in the Old Testament. In fact, the Jews of his day were still doing this. So to suggest that Jesus supported the Judaism of the day is ludicrous.

The Old Testament also taught revenge via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Jesus taught forgiveness instead and to turn the other cheek.

I mean, face it, the very reason that Christians find Jesus so attractive is precisely because he renounced all the crap from the Old Testament that they didn't like.

So there's now way that Jesus supported the "popular" view of Judaism in those days. Of course, even back then, just as there is today I'm quite sure that all Jews did not hold the same beliefs. They didn't have books and reading skills like we have today. Most people just followed the masses and we all know how the masses are easy to follow rumors. Some of the more seriously spiritual Jews were most likely quite mystical in their views of "God". In fact, if you read about their history you can see that the entire Hebrew faith sprung out of mystical beliefs that proceeded it.

You ask me where's my "proof"? That's truly hilarious because where is there any proof of any of the hearsay rumors in the Bible?

It's better to ask, "Where's my evidence?"

Well the evidence is abound.

First off, just look at the Old Testament fables. They have a God who commands people "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but then in the following fables continually directs people to stone sinners and heathens to death, often times in large mass murders.

It's also a story of a male-chauvinistic God. These fables even claim that women must make atonement for their filthy sin of having given birth.

The atonements are twice as long for having given birth to a female baby as they are for having a male baby. Moreover, this God also condones slavery, and places the price of a male slave at twice the value of a female slave.

The list of utter absurdities goes on and on.

So we already have sound reasonable evidence that the Old Testament or Torah is just a set of fables written by men. Sometimes they contain well-intentioned moral values, other times they contain utter male-chauvinistic absurdities like I've just mentioned.

Jesus didn't need to 'lie' about anything. Where did he ever claim to be "preaching Judaism" anyway?

He simply viewed God in a mystical way, perhaps even in a combination of Buddhist wisdom along with the mystical view that many Jews of that time period held.

According to the hearsay gospels (if we can even trust them to hold a hint of truth), Jesus supposedly taught that "Ye are Gods" he even pointed out that this can be found in the Torah. And he said this in defense of being accused of Blaspheme when he said "I and the Father are One". In other words, just put two and two together there and you can see that Jesus was indeed saying that we are all children of God and that he wasn't claiming to be special in that regard.

It's makes perfect sense.

On the other hand to believe that Jesus was the demigod of the God depicted in the Torah, you'd have to believe that the God of the Torah was a completely fool. What kind of an idiot would command people to murder heathens and define a "heathen" by anyone who disagrees with what is said in the Torah, and then send his only begotten son into that very same crowd to basically disagree with the major moral values of the Torah.

Such a God would need to be a complete idiot.

It makes far more sense to just recognize that the Torah had become increasingly corrupt with the very POOR moral values of male-chauvinistic men who had been teaching that it's ok to murder heathens and sinners, and that seeking revenge and getting even was ok too.

Jesus rejected all of that.

So to say that Jesus was teaching lessons from the Torah is utterly absurd. Even Cowboy recognizes that in order to believe in Jesus you must believe that he brought a BRAND NEW COVENANT. There's no way to believe that Jesus was supporting the Old Testament. That's never going to work.

I think it's far more reasonable to just recognize that Jesus was attempting to teach far better morals than had been written into the Torah. Unfortunately his ministry ended with a horrible crucifixion one day. Rumors started, and before long the "New Testament" emerged trying to make out like Jesus was the demigod of the God of Abraham. But face it, it just doesn't wash.

The conclusions I've come to make far more sense.

The biblical story as a whole makes no sense at all. You have a God who at one point drowns out sinners, and in the next moment he's sending his son to be crucified to pay for their sins.

That single and very profound contradiction in the behavior of this fictitious God says it all. The biblical stories are totally unreasonable.

They're no more reasonable than Greek Mythology.

The story I propose is REASONABLE.

That, my friend, is the difference.

I'm proposing a reasonable explanation of what actually happened to start these absurd rumors of a demigod who was the sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of man.

And it's a very reasonable hypothesis. Far more reasonable than all the convoluted twists and lies a person need to continually make up to try to support the original myth. And those attempts always fail. They have to fail because the stories, as written, are nonsensical and always contradicting no matter what explanations are made up to try to support them.

Was going to reply individually to the points you made. But all your chatter is about Jesus rejecting the old testament/old covenant. Jesus FULFILLED the old testament. So with it being fulfilled it held no more power, which then Jesus gave us the new testament/new covenant.

Our fathers law/covenants are only for a certain amount of time. When Jesus returns he will have fulfilled the new testament, which it then to will have no more power over us and we will be given new laws for living in the paradise, if and when we get there.

=======================================
First off, just look at the Old Testament fables. They have a God who commands people "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but then in the following fables continually directs people to stone sinners and heathens to death, often times in large mass murders
=======================================

Yes, very true. But not taken correctly. So when a judge sentences someone to death for some crime, should the judge then be sentenced to the same fate? No, a judgement is a judgement of a crime. It is not a crime itself. People couldn't just go around stoning people for no reason, they were stoned for a crime they did eg., sentenced to death for the crime they committed. Same as we do no in our culture today. Only difference is there was not a "judge". It was an individual judging. So that is why Jesus is now the judge and we are not to judge. To insure fairness in the judgement not influenced by greed, jealousy, or any other emotion. It is a fair straight forward judgement.

We know for a fact that all eye-witnesses cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Many are simply mistaken in what they believed they saw, and others are outright liars.

In fact, when it comes to things like religion we seek kooks all the time. The entire New Testament was written by a very few men. Men who were clearly obsessed with demanding that their stories were true.

Hells bells, we see people today doing this all the time. There was just a new fellow posting on these forums the other day claiming that he "knows" God exists and has experienced him.

So there you go.

In fact this is very common in spiritual matters and it's not limited the Abrahamic Myths. People from all religions have claimed to have experienced there Gods, angels, fairies or whatnot.

I mean, if we take your stance that we cannot reject eye-witness accounts then we'd have to give every religion in the world the same merit. I'm willing to bet that you can even find people who will swear up and down that they personally saw the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Besides, these so-called "eye-witnesses" of the Bible sure must not have very good eyesight. One of them has Judas casting down the reward money in the temple and going out and hanging himself, and other one has Judas buying a field with the reward money and falling head-first and having his bowels burst out.

So much for the dependability of these so-called "eye-witnesses"

If you were a judge in a courtroom and you had two different eye-witnesses telling you two different things which one would you believe? You'd probably have to dismiss the case on the grounds the the evidence is too undependable.

Of course in the case of a book that is supposed to be the "Word of God" you can simply dismiss this as being clearly false. It's just hearsay rumors that people can't even keep straight.

That's ok.

I was just disagreeing with Spider when he suggested that Jesus was actually teaching from the Torah.

Apparently you're in agreement with me that Jesus was not just rehashing the Torah but instead he was teaching a completely new set of moral values.

So my point still stands. Jesus was not just rehashing the Torah. He was not teaching the Torah. It cannot be said that Jesus was teaching "Judaism" of that day. Clearly he was teaching different morals and laws.

You take this to mean that Jesus brought a NEW covenant. Fine.

As far as I'm concerned the "New Covenant" he brought was the moral values of Buddhism. He clearly was not teaching the old Judaism of the day.

I rest my case.

I know for a fact that I've posted several times on stoning in Judaism, I would have thought you would have read at least one.

In ancient Judaism, stoning was only to be performed under very specific circumstances.

1. At least two witnesses to the crime had to testify.
2. 12 judges all had to agree that the accused was guilty of a crime deserving death.
3. The witnesses had to carry out the execution, which would be done by pushing the accused off of a cliff and then droping a huge stone on the accused.

Were the people gathered at the well to stone the adulteress following the law of Judaism? Jesus frequently spoke out against the degeneration of Judaism in his day. It was no longer the Judaism handed down by God and Moses. Citizens were taking the law into their own hands. Jesus frequently taught that the greater message to love others in the Torah had been sublimated, to appease the carnal desires (for vengeance, lust, etc) of the masses. For instance: Moses created a law that allowed for divorce, because the people would have rebelled against a law that didn't allow divorce.

Look at the book of Jonah. Jonah rebelled against God, because why? Tell me why Jonah refused to go to Nineveh, without looking it up online. You have said that you have studied the Bible for nearly 50 years, so tell me why Jonah rebelled.

Edit: Turns out the BBCodes for lists hasn't been implemented...

============================================
If you were a judge in a courtroom and you had two different eye-witnesses telling you two different things which one would you believe? You'd probably have to dismiss the case on the grounds the the evidence is too undependable.
=============================================

One apparent New Testament contradiction has arisen concerning the means by which Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of the innocent blood, died. In Matthew 27:5, the scripture says of Judas, “and he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.”

However, Acts 1:18-19 records the same event in a different manner, “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.”

The first passage reports that Judas hanged himself, the latter concludes that the betrayer of Jesus fell and “burst asunder in the midst.” Which of these is correct? Did Judas Iscariot hang himself, or did he die as a result of a fall? Through careful consideration of Scripture (Isaiah 28:10), one might see that both accounts could be correct.

Immediately following the account of Judas’s death in Matthew 27, Jesus Christ is tried for the last time. Pontius Pilate allows the Son of God to be delivered into the hands of wicked men and crucified. Jesus bore the cross to Golgotha, and there He hung for six agonizing hours, suspended between Heaven and earth. Jesus cried with a loud voice, and yielded His spirit to His Father. As the last breath escaped the lips of the precious Son of God, “. . .the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the Earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose” (Matthew 27:51-52).

The exact time between verse 5 and verses 51 and 52 is not known, but approximately six to nine hours had elapsed. It was during this time that Judas hanged himself. The Bible relates that when Jesus died, there was an earthquake so mighty that rocks were broken and graves were opened. One may assuredly presume that an earthquake strong enough to rend a rock might also be powerful enough to break a rope or cord, specifically the rope from which Judas was hanging. Consequently, it follows, that while Judas did in fact hang himself, the cord from which he was suspended, broke, and he fell headlong, burst asunder, and his bowels gushed out.

While the supposed contradictions mentioned here represent only two of the plethora of attacks imposed on the Holy Bible, one can see that many things that appear to our finite minds as discrepancies are merely a lack of understanding on our part. The Bible commands us to seek wisdom and understanding; however, when worldly learning contradicts the Word, we must as the Apostle Paul declares, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” Philippians 3:8.

So in the end you can see there is no contradiction, just merely misunderstanding and not taking the WHOLE bible into account of exactly what it teaches.

=======================================================================
Source of knowledge can be included if asked upon. Will be done by email for not to cause conflicts of interest and make it appear as i'm promoting some site or some particular person on this forum.
========================================================================

All these band-aids and twisted excuses just to try to keep Jesus nailed to the fable of a jealous male-chauvinistic egotistical God who hates heathens and supports religious bigotry.

I prefer my vision of Jesus much better.

To each their own.

There is no way there is a creature like the one of man's creation they call god.

The creature they created is too petty, too hypocritical and too ridiculous to exist.

Just like the monsters children create in their imagination.
Too outlandish to be real.

and the curse of fallen man was to believe something called god existed, thus reducing itself to blindness, that itself was creating all things that occur, and not this thing called god.

And you were healed of such. Our father works through people. He doesn't just show his face and say behold may Kerry be healed. No, our father works through people. That's where our conscience comes from. That is our father speaking to us to do his will. And our father gives us certain different abilities and skills to help others. It all boils down to where YOU want to give the credit to. If you want to rob our father of his blessing of you being healed and give it straight to the doctors so be it. But nevertheless our father gave them the knowledge and the ability to heal you of such.



No, that's strictly YOUR OPINION. You admit you have no evidence. On the other hand, I can point to EXACTLY what healed me and tell you which doctors and clinicians spent a good part of their lives and a LOT of HARD WORK discovering and perfecting these techniques. I researched this as if my very LIFE depended on it- because it _did_. So it's not going to sit very well with me that someone with a religious one-track mind needs to steal the credit for this and give it to the object of that one-track-mindedness.

Truly, you weren't there and you don't know one thing about that ordeal-- neither the science or the experience. Sorry.

I have a neice who does this, too. At the time I was going through this, my mother was dying of an agressive cancer. After she died, my niece wrote me saying that Mother could have had a healing from "The Lord" if she had only the courage to ask for it. Here was someone who's biggest life's problem was deciding which Bible college she was going to be able to afford-- someone who had lived a pretty comfortable life provided for indirectly by that same grandmother who helped her Mother make it through nursing school to make a good living so that she needed for nothing-- judging the very source of that comfort harshly. When my sister finally left her husband because of child abuse and his refusal to do anything towards supporting the family in lieu of his Church work, my neice became openly verbally abusive to my sister. She turned even the most religious folks in my family against her, and then moved far away to escape the results.

That's what excessive religiosity does to some people. They completely lose their perspective in their religions.


-Kerry O.

You could have been honest and admitted you didn't even know there was a book of Jonah. If it can't be used to bash Christianity and it's not a well known verse, you've never heard of it.