Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I stumbled onto the BBC documentary about Jesus being a Buddhist earlier this morning.  

 

Supposedly, Buddhist monks go and seek out a respected leader's reincarnation after they pass away? Or used to, I don't know how it goes today.  And it was implied that maybe the three wise men from the East were Buddhists that went to visit Jesus when he was born.  

 

Then it went on to say that this would make sense as supposedly Jesus would have more than likely gone to study Buddhism in India from ages 14-29 (his "lost years").  Then returned to Judea at 29.  

 

Also, in the documentary, they were saying how it was possible Jesus survived his crucifixion and fled to India, where he led a group of monks.  

 

I don't know. It was all a little weird to me, but I was wondering if I could get others' thoughts on it?  I'm still leaning towards the mythicist view of Jesus, but the documentary was intriguing. Buddhism was spreading at the time and was already a good 500 years old during Jesus' time so it could be possible. So, thoughts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This view, or versions of it (e.g. Jesus was trained as a swami in India, etc.) has been around for decades.  I think the Rosicrucians and kindred groups promulgated it;  my father told it to me as truth when I was young 45 yrs ago.  His group also thought that Jesus continued to function as a guru years after he rose from the dead and that the gnostics came closer to his teachings than did the "orthodox."

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reasons to think he did go to India, there's a lot of reason why people would make it up. There are also a few reasons to think he did not go to India, but those are pretty weak by themselves.

 

All this adds up to the conclusion that he very probably did not go there.

 

Of his teachings, all the bits that are shared by him and Buddhism also are shared by religions that were more common in the region - it is way more likely he got them from Judaism or other local religions. Of Buddhist teachings that strongly contrast with the religions in his region, you find none in the gospel records.

 

There's no early evidence of any kind for such a claim, even - it seems to be based, in part, on Muslim speculations, based on a conclusion Muhammad made based on the principle that God doesn't let the innocent suffer - hence, Jesus could not have died on the cross. This in turn made them come up with the solution that God had made Judas look like Jesus and had him crucified instead, and Jesus went into hiding to explain why he never was seen by the Christians after the crucifixion. So, basically, you get an obvious problem from a conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever, and this makes the ground real fertile for later speculation, speculation that especially in the 19th century was remade by theosophists into the Christ-in-India theory.

 

And there we get to the main crux of the matter: why people would make it up. Jesus carries some kind of prestige in European culture, so if you can somehow lull people into believing that this or that is what Jesus believed, that tricks them into respecting the belief itself. You'll notice how commonly people will claim that this or that is what Jesus taught - even when there's no mention of such a teaching in any gospels, not even the non-canonical ones, and when you can find direct contradictions to it in them. When the theosophists mixed and matched Christianity, Buddhism, Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Spiritism, etc, they really liked claiming Jesus as one of their doctrinal ancestors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus couldn't have been a Buddhist.  He was in North America instructing the 13th tribe - who strangely looked like white Europeans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first you have to establish he existed (you cant)

second if you could you would have to prove he did meet with Buddhists (there is no evidence)

third you would have to prove his teachings were not influenced by similar religions in the area

 

its a huge stretch to prove any of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fun to think of, but from the little I've read, it seems way more likely that if he existed he was an Essene. The bible makes a lot of nasty comments about the Sadduces and Pharases, but totally ignores the Essenes despite them being a major jewish sect at the time. I get the impression that Jesus's teachings weren't really all that foreign to the ideas floating around during the 2nd temple period, so there's no need to explain anything away by adding India and Buddhism to the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it in the Gospel of Thomas that this is written:  "Split the wood, and I am there?"  Some people take this to be a teaching of a sort of pantheism and read a mystical, yogi-like Jesus into it.  Others say it just means that Christ is with you in your daily work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Reza Aslan is right,  then the historical jesus would not have had the means to travel there. 

 

 

According to the Michael Teachings Jesus family was a member of the Essence community.  He was born into poverty and lived a hard life at the bottom of the social ladder. 

 

Given the number of messianic jews running around at the time. It is conceivable one or more took the name Jesus and traveled elsewhere to preach their interpretation of his teaching.  

Then again, it could just be turtles all the way down. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

TurtlesAllTheWayDown-small.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the turtles theory almost has it right, but instead of turtles it's maths. The world rests on maths. And it's maths all the way down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that some Hindus think that Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna.  Of course, their version of Jesus would support Hindu theologies.

My personal take on Jesus of Nazareth is that he was probably a historical person, but it is very difficult to know much about him with any certitude.  All the differing conclusions in searches for the historical Jesus suggest to me that the quest is so surrounded in myth, hearsay, and legend that it's hard to have much confidence in any particular view.  

I personally tend to shy away from pure mythicism as it can smack too much of an atheistic agenda at times.  It is probably too "simple" as well (i.e., everything about Jesus is simply 100% BS, etc.)

At any rate, there's no need to stretch anything to show that the "Jesus of faith" is surrounded in myth and metaphysical speculations.  My guess is that he is a combination of religious ideals, legends, myths, and historical personage(s) combined in a way that's too difficult to reconstruct with any confidence.  

My two cents...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I had honestly never heard of the idea before. I did think it was kind of odd and a stretch, but I guess a lot of people do want a way to explain away the "lost years."  I'm beginning to think it was an alien, too!!  And I LOVE the turtle, picture xDD   

 

I'm also having trouble accepting 100% the mythicist view.  I had no idea so many messianic Jews were running around at the time.  I guess now that I think about it, why wouldn't some Jews want to be the Messiah or have their child be the Messiah or their friend or something? I mean, some people are drawn to want to be part of something bigger than themselves. I've worked with people that thought they were some prophet talked about in Revelation, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I just never really thought about it. Hmm. Turtles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.