Buddhism in the Classical World, its impact

>>1325580
Its pretty likely. For example, Barlaam and Josaphat is a story Christianity got from Mani. Mani is influenced by Buddhism, as he claims to be Buddha's reincarnate and traveled to india to learn buddhism, etc.

Most likely source of connection can be found from Buddhism -> Mani -> Christian influence.

Gnostics may have been influence. The so called "desert fathers", ascetics, monastics, prayers have some connection to Buddhists.

>>1325580
>Mani is influenced by Buddhism, as he claims to be Buddha's reincarnate
>as he claims to be [the guy who broke free from the cycle of rebirth]

Wew lad.

>>1325702
meant to quote
>>1325654

Also, there are some very fundamental disagreements between basic Buddhist tenants, and basic Christian tenants. Can't imagine the influence was that big.

>>1325702
Mani also claimed to be Jesus IIRC

Nobody said Mani was consistent

Nobody said religion was consistent to be quite honest

>>1325708
>>1325702
He also claim to be a reincarnation of Jesus as well.

Don't look at me on how those makes sense. It might be possible. Thats syncreticism for you. (look at Bahai for modern syncretics)

>>1325712
>>1325715
Mani sounds like a retard to be honest.

If he can't even get a very basic concepts from other religions right, I wouldn't trust him to create his own.

>>1325721
As opposed to someone claiming he spoke to an burning tree, someone that curses as trees, someone that claims to be all powerful god, etc?

He's just one of the dozens other.

Gnostic Christianity seems to be very heavily influenced by Buddhism.

Generally, the Gnostics held ideas that were very prominent in Buddhism:
Belief that human souls were 'trapped' in the physical world and would forever reincarnate aimlessly unless enlightenment was reached.

The story of the Demiurge seems to be inspired from Buddhist sutras, particularly a story in which the Buddha travels to one of the highest Heaven-realms where he meets Brahma. This Brahma is deluded, and believes himself to be the Creator of the Universe and omnipotent simply because he was the first being to appear in the kalpa cycle, and after he began to feel lonely, other beings and worlds formed too, leading him to erroneously conclude they had arisen due to his wishes rather than because of the natural and karmic laws. However, in the story, it is demonstrated that Brahma is actually not omnipotent or omniscient, as he is still trapped in the cycle of rebirth and suffering and has no knowledge of the Dharma or of the states of being higher than his (Buddhahood/paranirvana, arahants, non-returners, etc.).

The above story should sound familiar: sounds very much like the story of the Demiurge, who created the physical world and believes himself omnipotent, despite his power being confined to this physical and imperfect world and his complete ignorance of the states of being outside of his experience.

File: allens_shroud.png (378KB, 612x622px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 612x622px

>>1325721
L. Ron Hubbard seems to have done a good job.

It comes down to appealing to people's fears and confusion, making unfalsifiable claims that cannot be investigated through earthly means, promising eternal reward and threatening eternal punishment, revealing mysteries slowly through a priesthood, and never ever admitting you're wrong, under any circumstances.

Sometimes fabricating artifacts helps too.

>>1325729
There's only one Jesus.
There's only one God.
Jesus is God.

Nobody talked to a burning tree; God's glory manifested around a bush to draw Moses' attention in towards it so that they might have a conversation.

Jesus made all things, and cursed one fig tree, a sign that the nation of Israel did not produce the fruit that was expected of it by the landowner. Fig trees represent Israel. I tell you this because you lack all understanding.

Jesus is the all powerful God, which you will know, for sure, right in your face, before you reach your eternal destination. Either way. You'll know, for sure, and your tongue will confess, for sure, that Jesus is Lord; and your knee will bend, for sure, before the living God.

For sure.

>>1325764
All of satan's counterfeit religions play on the same theme; use your knowledge of good and evil and be as God.

>>1325580


AY YO HOL UP

ARE YOU TELLING ME

LEMME GIT THIS STRAIGHT

WE WUZ BUDDHAS AND SHIT?

PRAISE WHAT

PRAISE WHAT

PRAISE LORD JESUS HALLELUJAH EVERYBODY

>smacks lips

NAMASTE MOTHERFUCKER PRAISE GOD

>enlightened salvation intensifies

WE FINNA BE REBORN IN CHRIST AND WALK THE EIGHTFOLD NARROW WAY AMEN BROTHER

>>1325802
Buddhism isn't about becoming god, or even attaining power. It's simply about ceasing to partake in the cycle of samsara - the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Nirvana does not mean becoming God.

>>1325654

>the desert fathers were Gnostics

drink bleach

>>1325825
Doesn't matter, as long as you don't worship god. You're going to hell.

>>1325844
Not all buddhist are atheists.

>>1325825
Aye, it's one of satan's more low budget counterfeit religions.

>>1325852
Not all buddhist are buddhist

>>1325854
Buddhist teachings are teachings by themselves, you can be a Christian and see the truth in "Buddha's" teachings.

There is a sun in the solar system it is a fact, does not matter what religion you are or are not. It is the same with applied teachings that prove themself to be true.

>>1325855

was Siddhartha a Buddhist?

>>1325866
Appearantly. But even an ant is a buddhist, and even a Buddhist mink is not concerned with calling himself a buddhist. It is a label, just a term to attempt to describe a certain teaching.

These teachings are so much more than the term "buddhist". The same with Christianity

File: bane.jpg (72KB, 500x724px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x724px

>>1325844
>>1325854
>people actually believe this shit

Two things: the first, this thread is not one for discussion as to the validity of the Buddhist religion/philosophy: it is for the discussion of possible Buddhist influence on Christian and Gnostic thought.

Second, there have been plenty of successful criticisms of Christianity and its beliefs/tenets. You're simply in a faith where ignoring such things is considered a virtue, and where using political power to destroy and shut down all criticism is considered appropriate. So don't come here with your "they're going to Hell!" crap, because frankly, nobody believes it or fears it, any more than you would feel fear if I told you you were destined to be reborn in one of the Buddhist Hell-realms for insulting the Dharma.

>>1325866
Siddhartha was Hindu in the same sense that Jesus was jewish

>>1325865
Jesus rose from the dead. Also a fact.

The Buddha did nothing miraculous, showed no signs or wonders, died and stayed dead. Also facts.

>>1325877
Going to hell is horrific even if you don't think it will happen to you. Even if you "know" "for sure" that there is no hell.

When it happens to you, you will be horrified.

>>1325880
So Siddhartha was Hindu royalty?

>>1325880
There were no Hindus back then. There were people of Vedas and people not following the Vedas.

If his life story says anything, he was of the later. You could argue he was a Hindu as a ethnicity, but even that won't hold given Hindu identity wasn't formed until a thousand years later.

More accurately, he was a hedonists while growing up. Then followed the teachings of Sramana and finally became Buddha.

>>1325897
Sakya royalty.

File: ManichaeismMap.jpg (52KB, 800x371px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x371px

>>1325721
Mani's religion blobbed out peacefully over the whole of eurasia and would have qualified as a worldreligion at its height.

Doesnt seem like the work of a retard.

>>1325890
They both taught Everlasting teachings that apply to all beings.

>>1325880

btw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

who says Jesus couldn't have gone to India in the 15 years of his life the NT doesn't cover?

>>1325890
>>1325890
>Jesus rose from the dead
>a fact

According to who? A religious text?

Also, the Buddhist sutras do state the Buddha performed supernatural feats. As for not coming back from the dead, the Buddha never claimed he would - in fact, the whole point of his enlightenment was that he'd never come back. He moved on, and is no longer part of the cycle of aimless rebirth.

Why should the supposed miracles of Jesus be more 'real' than the miracles of the Buddha? The evidence points to both of their miracle stories being later developments.

>>1325897
Given his origin story was as indian prince gone sage, yeah.

Do you continue to exist in any form after you break the cycle?

>>1325923
It would be extremely painful

>>1325903
>all beings
The food christians eat included?

>>1325915
Apparently you don't know what the word "fact" means.

kek

I find it odd that with zero evidence, you think Jesus went to India.

Even you, a satanic pagan heathen, want something to do with Jesus.

>>1325897
>>1325901
I believe that the entire 'Buddha was a prince' narrative is a bit of an exaggeration, and that modern researchers think the Sakyas were actually more of a republic or an oligarchical-elective system. So Siddhartha might have been a patrician or elector, perhaps even son of the elected tribal chief, but not a prince or son of a 'real' monarch.

>>1325915

>the supposed miracles of Jesus
>the miracles of the Buddha

I notice either one unnecessary qualification or one missing one.

Poor show overall m8t.

>evidence points to both of their miracle stories being later developments

3/10 pls get good sauce

>>1325923
You become as God in a godless philosophy.

A cheap satanic counterfeit of reality.

>>1325927
Jesus said "it is not what goes into your mouth that will defile your but what comes out of you mouth that will"

>>1325923
Nirvana is a pretty abstract concept.

Sometimes it is described as the 'highest happiness', but it's not perception, non-perception or neither non perception or perception.
You kind of traced the concept of 'existing, not existing, or something in between', I suppose.

File: you're berry gay.jpg (29KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x336px

>>1325930
>I find it odd that with zero evidence, you think Jesus went to India.

What are you on about? I do not believe one bit that Jesus ever went to India, and I have no idea from where you got the notion that I supported such a view.

>>1325937
So yes no? maybe? I don't know? Do you care to repeat that? Jesus isn't the boss of me.

>>1325943
He also says "don't do what you hate"

>>1325933
It isn't godless philosophy or becoming God or satanic. Those are just opinions

>>1325932
All miracles are supposed, idiot. No rational person actually believes in supernatural miracles, but it would be redundant for me to say 'supposed' more than once in the same sentence.

Stupid illiterate Christcuck. Why are you even in a thread about Buddhist discussion, when your knowledge of Buddhism seems abysmal? Just to proselytize? Why not go outside and actually proselytize in real life, if you seem to feel so strong about it?

>>1325942

he's clearly autistic and thinks that anyone who replies to him is obviously the same person because they're all named anonymous

>>1325939
I think i read somewhere that Buddha refused to answer what happens after parinirvana to an enlightened being. Might be wrong.

>>1325962
He's been asked similar questions couple of times. He refuses some answers because of linguistic/conceptual issues.

Nagarjuna clarified some of buddha's position whilst still pointing out the problem of language and such.

Does Nirvana imply 'oblivion', or does it imply some sort of continued existence but without any of those things which tie one to samsara?

>>1325954

>All miracles are supposed, idiot.

All temporal events are supposed too, better apply radical doubt as a universal.

>would be redundant for me to say 'supposed' more than once in the same sentence?

No, it would be redundant to say it once.

For example, your supposed intelligence is less actually good than mine. Why would I qualify your supposed intellect with a statement of doubt but not my own? Could it be inherent bias?

Besides this, what makes you think I am a Christian?

>your knowledge of Buddhism seems abysmal?

I never said anything about Buddhism. I only criticized your middle school-tier sentence structure. Or maybe you think everyone itt is talking to you.

kill yourself faggot

>>1325984
Extinguished or blown out (literally). The usage of the word was coined after the cultural familiarity of the metaphor related to burning fire.

>>1325962
Yeah, he refused to take a stance on a bunch of metaphysical questions, because answering them wouldn't be conducive towards the cessation of suffering.

That's why the concept of Nirvana is a bit abstract.
The Buddha basically said 'You can't understand it anyway, just know that's is the complete cessation of suffering and don't worry about it m8'.

>>1325984
It's not oblivion. Buddha argued explicitly against annihilationism.

>imply some sort of continued existence

>"There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension, nor motion, nor the plane of infinite ether.... nor that of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, neither this world nor another, neither the moon nor the sun. here, monks, I say that there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising, for this is itself without support, without continuance in samsara, without mental object - this is itself the end of suffering.
There is, monks, an unborn, not become, unmade, uncompounded, and were it not, monks, for this unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded, no escape could be shown here for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded. But because there is, monks, an unborn, not become, unmade, uncompounded, therefore an escape can be shown, for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded."

You 'transcend' any notions of existence, non existence, or anything in between. But that's not really Nirvana either. It can't be truly be understood from in an intellectual way.

>>1326017
>You 'transcend'
>You
Here's a (You)

>>1326004
>the cultural familiarity of the metaphor related to burning fire

The early (lol proto-indo-aryan-iranian-european) Vedic religion was fucking obsessed with fire and the hearth.

cool lore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians#Expansion

Aryans.

>>1326033
Nice dubs faggot. But who do the dubs belong to?

>>1325984
There is no self to begin with. You're made of cells made of atoms made of energy made of whatever. There is no "you" to be oblivionated.

>>1326121

>made of whatever

oh so you clearly have no idea what you're talking about but still feel the need to make statements to the effect that you do.

>>1325580
Its not clear how much it influenced Christianity although on google you can find some academic papers that examine that question. Whatever its influence it probably had more of an influence on the Gnostic and other early monastic/reclusive/ascetic-like Christian groups compared to the whole religion. Its pretty clear that Buddhism had significant influence on Greek philosophy through the skeptics though.

>>1325923
If you are talking about Nirvana/enlightenment, while you are still alive you still have a conscious mind but after you die and consciousness ends you do not exist in any form whatsoever. Keep in mind though that from the Buddhist perspective there was no self that existed in the first place and whats going on is more a self-perpetuating illusion ending rather then anything concrete being eliminated.

>>1326017
He did try to avoid describing it in terms that would cause people to form misconceptions of it but in general it seems pretty clear that what he talked about was the ending of cycle of existence which can be simplified for the purposes of general discussion as saying there is nothing remaining at all which exists at that point.

>>1326121
This needs to be established. There is a self that people refer to when they say I am myself. However these are not concrete and the self is an ever changing process-like type of identity.

The buddhists use the term anatta or anatman. So they're not saying there's no you, but rather what you call as "you" or the self is simply doesn't have the power or the existence(grounds of being) that its been given.

This in turn leads to emptiness and the impermanence. Not non-existence of self or existence of one. You're positing an old dead buddhist tradition's point about non-existence of self.

Was the Buddha omnipotent after his enlightenment?

'Among the Indians are those philosophers also who follow the precepts of Boutta, whom they honour as a god on account of his extraordinary sanctity.' - Clement of Alexandria.

Objective proof that 1) early Christians recognized Buddhism as one of the many pagan beliefs and 2) Buddhism was remote enough from the Christian world that it had literally no influence on it at all.

>>1326304
Do people in Rome see the same thing as people in Egypt? Or Persia? Obviously not. Mani was born about 100 years later, he had a good knowledge of Buddhism. Enough that he went to India to learn more.

>>1326304
But it is possible Buddhists influenced the philosophers who would later influence Church theologians.

>>1326314
Saint Augistine was heavily influenced by Mani in his earlier years.

>>1326287

even if he was it wouldn't matter, cause he just didn't give a fuck about temporal power anymore.

>>1326313
Mani was born in eastern Iran, which is very far from Alexandria and much closer to India. It would make sense that he would know about Buddhism in more detail. Also I don't really see how Mani has anything to do with early Christian thought.

>>1326314
Well that doesn't really matter so much - what I am saying is that the core Christian doctrine was completely untouched by Buddhism.

>>1326331
After his conversion he heavily denounced Mani as the biggest fraud in history, bringing people close to the truth but pulling it from under them (he would roll in his grave if he knew about Islam).

>>1326344
Oops, I meant to say Iraq there, not Iran.

>>1326331

he was also heavily influenced by booze, parties, and loose women.

If I am not mistaken.

File: spread-of-Manichaeism-map.jpg (38KB, 610x329px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 610x329px

>>1326344
Earliest fragment of Bible is from 2nd century. Mani was from 3rd century. Mani is from the same time period as those early christian thought period.

Not only that, Mani spread to the same areas that Christianity spread to, around the same time.

On top of this, there are Mani influences that are well known and some that are theories but no concrete evidence due to passage of time.

Mani religion was a syncretic one, so he had the christian ideas and buddhist ideas, as well as some others.

As you are arguing with another about "core" christian doctrine, this is most likely outside of buddhist touch. Core of Christianity is completely different from Buddhist doctrines that it would be weird to say so.

Also, on to the last point about mani being denounced. You can denounce someone while still using what they taught. He wouldn't be the first or the last. Its how things are in history and real life.

>>1325825
An intelligent post but none to hear it

Buddhism probably influenced the Gnostics a bit more, but there was probably some influence on Chrstianity as well. It was just more.. subtle.

>>1325903
No, no they did not. Nothing the Buddha "taught" will last longer than this world.

>>1325949
Follow me closely.

There is no God in Buddhism. Therefore, to be like God, you have to be non-existent too. the attempt to be non-existent is the attempt to be like God in a godless philosophy.

The Buddha had words, and ideas, and nothing special about him. Nothing miraculous. Never claimed to be God. Never said there was a God. Died, and stayed dead.

Anyone who follows him to the grave will end up in hell.

Not telling people that is cruel. "Oh, hey, I see you're working on not suffering at all in this life, and that's all there is! No eternal suffering afterwards! No siree! Keep on keepin' on!"

File: Jafar.png (64KB, 222x200px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 222x200px

>>1326638
But something that Jesus "taught" will, right?

>>1326287

Nobody has ever been "enlightened".

It's a gag. A hoax. A spook.

>>1326645
Matthew 24:35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Fuck off moochy

>>1326643
stop responding to the troll you dumb fuck.

File: 1466603508913.jpg (15KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 225x225px

>>1326650
Give me a real reason as to why your Biblical passage is inherently more 'real' than a Buddhist sutra.

Go ahead, I'll be waiting.

File: 000011011.jpg (22KB, 323x263px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 323x263px

Unlike Christians, who are always teeter-tottering on a razor edge trying to avoid 'sin', the Buddhist's main goal is to reduce suffering itself. You can see how the Buddhist does not fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does, and on a philosophical level there is no black and white thinking that polarizes with good and evil, the moral presuppositions. Buddhism has already left them far behind, with the realization that they are all illusons, deceptions. In conclusion, the Buddhist is free, free from resentment and free from the obligation of judging others.

The Buddhist succeeds in the reduction of suffering by living a passive and non-urgent way life. With a greater self-discipline the Buddhist is better prepared to control his or her desires and avoid exciting his senses, whereas the Christian, unfortunately, does the exact opposite by living an ascetic lifestyle that represses the natural desires and engages in prayer that maintains an emotionally charged relationship with his deity.

The Buddhist, by avoiding suffering and avoiding extremes, is capable of managing a steady peace, experiencing tranquility and calm, and can express compassion in his lifestyle and character.

What most do not realize is that the Buddhist actually succeeds in the avoidance of suffering, while the Christian cannot and does not at all succeed avoiding sin. Sadly, the Christian is in perpetual need of "redemption" and "forgiveness," and continually fails to acquire the "grace" of God, the only possible absolution.

>>1326670
Christianity recognizes that "sin" is also a cause and effect thing you can take control of. It isn't exclusive to Buddhism or Christianity, even an atheist can see it, if you do something that is wrong is reverberates back, cause and effect

However, when Christ calls the sinners to repentence, Buddha "calls" people to the path. People go through hell and realize that they need God and wisdom, whether through Christ or through Buddha etc etc etc, they understand that their faith (in your religion) that you can alter the cause and effect of previous sin and also live a more mindful life for spiritual realization and for the greater good.

>>1325764
Very interesting. Seems like they may have combined that with Plato's perfect being as the original God, and of course a divine Jesus.

And there's Marcion with similar ideas, but less secret-knowledge mysticism.

>>1325721
>Mani sounds like a retard to be honest.
why did i laugh so hard at this?

>>1326659
Jesus claimed to be God. Buddha did not.
Jesus performed miracles. Buddha did not.
Jesus made prophecies. Buddha did not.
Jesus raised people from the dead. Buddha did not.
Jesus led a sinless life. Buddha did not.
Jesus was born of a virgin. Buddha was not.
Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies of His coming. Buddha did not.
Jesus rose from the dead. Buddha did not.

Jesus is in heaven. Buddha is not.

Jesus is God. Buddha is not.

Jesus has the power to make His words true. Buddha does not.

>>1326670
>Unlike Christians, who are always teeter-tottering on a razor edge trying to avoid 'sin',

Catholics and Orthodox do this.

Immature Christians do this.

Not all Christians do this. I do not do this.

Any self-righteousness granted by Buddhism will be resisted by God.

File: Snapchat-440309267298489953.jpg (871KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 1440x2560px

>>1326692
Did he really?

File: 1466462507933.png (36KB, 876x928px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 876x928px

>>1326692
And why are the claims of Jesus' miracles more valid than those claims for the miracles of Buddha? You merely enumerated the miracles that Jesus performed in the Bible: you did not give a reason as to why I should believe the accounts of Jesus but disregard the accounts of the Shakyamuni.

File: david icke.jpg (104KB, 780x497px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 780x497px

>>1326692
Well David Icke claimed to be a reincarnation of the Godhead, that doesn't make his books about lizard people true.

>>1326692
>Jesus claimed to be God. Buddha did not.
Buddha is also according to Srimad Bhagavatam an incarnation of Krsna. Krsna means God in Sanskrit according to Vaisnavas, and Christ in Greek is Christos and in Sanskrit is Krsna.

>Jesus performed miracles. Buddha did not.
According to the sutra there are heavenly actions that the Buddha performed, and both Christ and Buddha perform miracles today
>Jesus made prophecies. Buddha did not.
Given the circumstances, Christ prophecied and Buddha just taught.

>Jesus raised people from the dead. Buddha did not.
Christ would have been ridiculed as a necromancer and Buddha / monks are likely to perform exorcisms, but not the dead back to life.

>Jesus led a sinless life. Buddha did not.
We all live a sinful life until we fix it with Christ.

>Jesus was born of a virgin. Buddha was not.
It is rumored Buddha and a virgin birth.

>Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies of His coming. Buddha did not.
Buddha fulfills the prophecy in Srimad Bhagavatam

>Jesus rose from the dead. Buddha did not.
Neither of them died. Their soul and the nature of the soul is eternal.

>Jesus is in heaven. Buddha is not.
How do you know where Siddartha Gautama is? You don't.

>Jesus is God. Buddha is not.
It depends your religion (at least on here it does)


>Jesus has the power to make His words true. Buddha does not.
Both of their words prove themselves to be true.

>>1326697
Indeed.

>>1326703
They are in the original texts. They were witnessed by thousands. Tens of thousands. They caused him to be so popular that Israel was concerned Rome would crush them for the populist uprising.

>>1326721
Jesus proved His extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.

File: laughingknight.png (39KB, 379x430px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 379x430px

>>1326733
>They are in the original texts

You mean those texts that were written decades - if not centuries - after the supposed death of Christ by people who people who falsified their credentials who themselves were influenced by Paul's cock and bull?

>>1326730
False claims are false.
Buddha did nothing miraculous.
Buddha made no prophecies.
Jesus did not talk to the dead, He gave them life.
Jesus did not sin.
Rumors are not facts.
Prophecies are from God, and your work is not of God at all. The best it can be is a prediction, like Mohammad.
Jesus died. And rose. Buddha died. And stayed dead.
Buddha is in Hades awaiting trial whereupon he will be cast into the lake of fire. He has deceived many. He is a type of antichrist.
Jesus is God whether you have a religion or don't, or exist, or don't.
Buddha said nothing true, only things you're too mentally challenged to realize were false.

>>1326746
Written by eyewitnesses, disseminated in the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, without any dissent.

Yes.

Your idiotic hatred of Paul is costing you your very soul. Hope it's worth it.

File: 9996.jpg (56KB, 1140x393px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1140x393px

>>1326749
>"You have to believe my Gospel instead of that Sutra for no other reason that it's what I personally believe in!"

I knew Christcucks were bad at reasoning, but this is just a new low.

>>1326746
It is more likely that Christ's teachings were presented orally well before being written down.

Imagine writing about someone 30 years after they died in a time without the technology we have today. We would record phrases and some events, but we could not even begin to write every phrase and every event.

Just like a close friend helping you out, they say something different every day and 3 years later, how much of their advice do you consciously remember? Only some, but you could never record every single quote and meaning. Even silent teachings to impact your feeling.. it goes on

>>1326733

Someone writing hundreds of years after the fact that thousands of people saw something supernatural isn't a trustworthy source at all. There is no proof at all that the miracles that he allegedly performed were real.

>>1326754
>Written by eyewitnesses

No they weren't. All research points to the great majority of the gospels in existence being written not just pseudonymously, but decades after the supposed events they were writing about.

>without any dissent.

There was plenty of dissent. For one, your little Paul was hated by James and Peter and their followers.

>>1326754
>without any dissent
Paul's letters are literally about dissent and disputes within Christian communities. It's in the Bible itself.

>>1325894
Quit acting like an asshole and get off this board. /his/ is for historical discussion, not for people like you to shill their religious beliefs

>>1326749
>False claims are false.
What makes you think you or I or anyone on here does anything besides make claims?
>Buddha did nothing miraculous.
He does right here, by reading and applying his teachings, we can shape our lives.

>made no prophecies.
It wasn't his calling

>Jesus did not talk to the dead, He gave them life.
Ok
>Jesus did not sin.
Ok
>Rumors are not facts.
What you consider a rumor another considers as a fact. Even as a Christian, people believe our facts are rumors, so why seperate people just as dumb as we are?
>Prophecies are from God, and your work is not of God at all. The best it can be is a prediction, like Mohammad.
Christians deny the Holy Spirit against eachother everyday and it is very sad.
>Jesus died. And rose. Buddha died. And stayed dead.
No one dies.
>Buddha is in Hades awaiting trial whereupon he will be cast into the lake of fire.
According to your judgement, but the Judgement of God is not the judgement of men. Mercy triumphs judgement.
>He has deceived many. He is a type of antichrist.
According to your opinion, and words are just words. You can call someone stupid and it doesn't mean that person is actually stupid.

>Jesus is God whether you have a religion or don't, or exist, or don't
Not disagreeing with you at all

>Buddha said nothing true, only things you're too mentally challenged to realize were false.
You apply Buddha's teachings and Christ's teachings and realize they were only the path to truth.

>>1326759
Maybe people pretend to be over-reactive Christians to give it a bad name.

Even if not, it is understandable to see where anon is coming from.

>>1326759
You don't have to do anything. You can believe whatever you want.

And then you can experience the consequences of that belief.

>>1326765
Months. Years. Most done before 70 AD, with John's afterwards written on Patmos @ 95 AD.

The ones written after 95 AD were gnostic gospels, fakes, frauds, etc.

>>1326774
Yes, they were.

Don't be a Bart Ehrman victim. The man is an atheist fraud.

>>1326779
There are no extra-biblical dissents from what the gospel accounts are, as written.

Way to strain that gnat.

>>1326804
Why do people seperate the orthodox and gnostic ideas? They both believe in the same Christ. There is only one Christ.

>>1326781

History is His Story, and I'm here to tell it.

File: job interview.jpg (19KB, 292x219px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 292x219px

>>1326811
>There are no extra-biblical dissents from what the gospel accounts are, as written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-Christian_gospels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

>>1326647
And no one has gone to heaven or hell either. It's a gag. A hoax. A spook.

>inb4 but muh near death experiences

Products of the brain and nothing more. Go preach your bullshit somewhere else.

>>1326782
I'm saying the claims about the Buddha doing anything supernatural are false. Not you repeating them.
At best, Buddha is a holistic pain management specialist.
You asked me to distinguish God from Buddha, and I did.
.
.
Presenting rumors as facts is disingenuous. If they proved out, they would no longer be rumors.
No Christian denies the Holy Spirit. By definition, all Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. That's acceptance, not denial.
By death, by dying, Jesus went from this life into eternity as we all do, yes. We're all already immortal.
I'm telling you the judicial system of God, per the bible.
His words are deceiving. His words lead to hell. That may not have been his intent; his intent may have just been to deal with life without Hinduism. But here we are.
Good. Jesus is God.
Jesus is the path. He is the narrow path that leads to life. Buddhism is merely one of the ways a man walks down the broad road that leads to destruction.

A lot of things seem right to a man, but they all end at death.

>>1326813
Gnostics deny that Jesus came down from heaven in the flesh. That's the definition of the spirit of antichrist.

Orthodox are no different from Catholics to God; they're just two legs on the same statue, and that statue is scheduled for demolition.

File: 1417796205884.jpg (12KB, 250x205px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x205px

>mfw christians try to claim that they are being unfairly persecuted whilst posting shit like this

>>1326807
Where's your proof? Literally, where? How do you differentiate between the date of canonical scripture and that which is not? As different books contain different reports pertaining to Jesus' actions, so which ones were truly written by eyewitnesses? Further, how can you even make the eyewitness claim? We can demonstrably see that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their gospels decades after Jesus' death, so your narrative of unadulterated oral transmission is nothing but conjecture!

>>1326825
The apocrypha does not dissent from the gospels, and most of the works you cite are from centuries later. As in, not in the lifetime of eyewitnesses.

>>1326827
Billions of people know how wrong you are.

>>1326846
Organically, the same was as my brethren did in the first century. We are His sheep, and we know His voice. And His voice inspired all of the 66 books of the bible, which all harmonize together to tell the complete story of the earth from beginning to end.

And it literally proves itself by telling what will happen ahead of time, centuries ahead of time, so that a reasonable person can be sure that it's from God.

>>1326851
And even more people "know" Jesus isn't God. The numbers of believers or non believers don't prove anything either way.

>>1326851
No, billions of people have FAITH in a book. That's it. Billions BELIEVE I am wrong they do not KNOW I am wrong because they CANNOT know that I am wrong.

>>1326853
Please let me see these "prophecies" that came true. Oh and I hate to break it to you, but the Catholics VOTED on what is and is not scripture at one of the earlier church councils, Nicaea I believe.

>>1326853
>And it literally proves itself by telling what will happen ahead of time
You're right, all that stuff about the kingdom of heaven being imminent actually meant at least 2000 years later. Great prediction.

>>1326863
And let me redact this, as you say 66 so you must be Protestant. As such, Luther redacted the Catholic bible to fit his needs. Still though, a man picked the books. Not God.

>>1326837
I didn't ask you to make a distinction between anything.

You can continue your beliefs and I will also do the same. We both can be Christian who represent division against eachother.

There was no physical Christ in 500 bc, so to say Buddha is in hell is a typical mainstream Christian point of view. God has mercy on Buddha, Judas, etc, but no one has to believe it if they truly don't want to.

>>1326840
Not all Gnostic do. It is when people say "oh the Gnostics believe in this" and "oh and the orthodox" believe in this is where people already divided the Body of Christ. They are both right and are both heretics according to whether or both someone agrees with you or disagrees with you and they all just a list of words and limiting definitions

>>1326857
He either is or He is not, and that does not depend upon belief.

The truth is true no matter how many people believe it, and a lie is a lie no matter how many people think it's the truth.

>>1326860
I'm not speaking of them.

I'm speaking of the people in the afterlife, billions of whom know, for sure, that Jesus is Lord.

Funny thing is that even if someone you knew came back from the dead and told you that, you STILL wouldn't believe.

Because that's how you are.

>>1326841
Christians persecute eachother unfortunately. It is very hard to be a Christian when another Christian tells you you are going to hell and can't be saved. Very backwards.

>>1326876
But you have no proof these people are in the afterlife. You're just running in circles now. Come on man, this is getting pathetic.

>>1326863
No, there was no vote, and you're talking about canon, and no, it was not at Nicea.

So, yeah.

Anyway, the most fascinating prophecies seem to be in Daniel. Daniel prophesied that 483 years from the day the proclamation that the Temple could be rebuilt, as the Temple had been destroyed and the Jews in foreign captivity, the Messiah would be cut off at the end of that week.

Exactly 483 years to the day from the proclamation from Artaxerxes that the Jews could rebuild their temple, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt, on Palm Sunday, Nisan 10, 32 AD.

And at the end of that week, Messiah was cut off, not for His sake but for the sake of his brothers.

483 years, to the day.

>>1326865
Your ignorance and inability to articulate one actual prophecy doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have any actual information about the subject.

>>1326886
Complete bullshit. You post that lie on every single thread, and you always get told.

>>1326899
Gee, I must have Alzheimer's disease, because I can't remember one single person that could demonstrate one single fact that was not 100% accurate in that prophecy.

>>1326899
So go ahead and "tell" me off.

kek

>Herp derp Bart Erhman says that Daniel wrote in the 2nd century BC, not the 6th!

>>1326899
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Daniel 9:25

This includes a mathematical prophecy. As we have noted in previous articles, the Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year;4 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days. In effect, Gabriel told Daniel that the interval between the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem until the presentation of the Messiah as King would be 173,880 days.

The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C.

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day.

>>1326851
There are more non-christians than christians, therefore christianity is wrong

>>1326913
How does a year and a half turn into hundreds of years?

>>1326906
>herp derp, what do academics know with their fancy degrees and book learnin? only book I needs is the bible!

>>1326943
The inspired Word of God is not for godless people, even if those godless people consider themselves wise.

The wisdom of men is foolishness to God, Who delights in confounding the "wisdom" of mankind with the simple things in life.

>>1326960
Ah so people who believe in the bible as the word of God are more qualified to date its books than people who date books for a living

Got it

>>1326960

>I don't have to explain anything to people who don't already agree with me

File: LOL (2).jpg (45KB, 492x341px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 492x341px

>>1326960
>"Everyone who doesn't agree with my worldview is wrong"

>>1326970
This. The guy posting these attempts at shitty Christian indoctrinations is full of shit.

>>1325799
>Fabricated
We went over this in a thread, fuck off asshole.

>>1326670
nice generalization bro!

>>1325654
>Buddha's reincarnate
I thought that's literally an oxymoron.

the more I think about nibanna, the more I see it has dump a poo.
at first, you do not know that you have poo in you
then you notice it
you understand that you just need to let it go
then you clearly feel it ready to leave
once it left, you know that it left and you feel light and serene.

>>1325930
>Even you, a satanic pagan heathen,
Fuck off m8

You're doing a shit job of showing a grace-centric religion and move about levying the most damning of insults at folks in your own pious-fueled personal crusade rather than attempting to further the gospel and actions like these are the ones that turn people from the good word

>>1326643
M8, I'm no expert on Buddhism but I'm pretty sure not reaching Nirvana means continued suffering, and so IS almost hell-like.

>>1325899
>There were no Hindus back then. There were people of Vedas and people not following the Vedas.

That's literally the definition of hindu

>>1325841
Modern bleach is relatively non toxic

>>1327470
Thanks! That's what I was going for!

>>1325923
The Buddha himself said that even he doesnt know what happens to a person after parinirvania (dying after obtaining nirvana)

>>1325902
Oh shit is this where Buddhism comes from?

>>1326692
Buddha didn't declare himself as a god. I Buddhism there is no god. it is the way of life.

>>1325923

The Theravada doesn't say much on the subject. In Mahayana thinking, everything already is in nirvana and there is no "cycle" to break apart from delusive perceptions, but it implies that existence as we understand it is not compromised in any fundamental sense... as it's not actually what we view it to be in the first place. The saying goes "Things are not what they appear, nor are they otherwise. "

It's important to understand the mental foundation of dukkha and samsara in order to grasp "what" is eliminated in nirvana, and that it's not a particular physical or sensory property that needs to go.