Did Jesus die?

[Penguin]

I would like to know what your thoughts are on the following please. I would like to state that this in no way reflects my thoughts and is something I have put together quickly from other sources. Many thanks.

Jesus Christ was born in the holy land and left when he was about 13 and went to an area in India to study a form of Buddhism. He returned to the holy lands when he was about 28 years old. There is no account of the life of Jesus in the bible for between these ages.
He preached and healed people with methods, (which had never been seen before) with herbal and natural medicines, which were seen as miracles by the people in the area. Upon crucifixion Jesus was on the cross for alot shorter time than usual as there was a Sabbath due on the Saturday and they wanted him and the other two condemned men removed as soon as possible. The legs of the other two were broken to speed up their deaths and instead of Jesus having his legs broken a lance was stabbed into his side first to see if he was still alive. There was no response so he was removed and presumed dead (Buddhist meditation training made him able to do this) He was taken away to a cave and given various herbal & natural medicines and was resuscitated.
Upon a full recovery he managed to go east to Kashmir in India, going west would have been pointless as Europe was occupied heavily by Roman forces. He lived the rest of his years in India under a different identity and shortly before his death he revealed who he really was, passed away and was buried here. http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm
There are carvings here on the floor that show whoever is buried in the coffin has the wounds of crucifixion on his feet.

Can somebody tell me if one of the other two men crucified with Jesus was Judas please?

 

[taijasi]

Penguin,

Some would agree with this basic story, and certainly it is possible to maintain these beliefs and still remain a full-fledged Christian. I think it took everyone at CR to help me gradually to see that we are entitled to believe as we choose ...

Interesting, how important it seems to be to argue or maintain a status quo, but then - we are, all entitled ... yes, indeed.

Perhaps in the last analysis it comes down to not being willing to conform to the pressures around us. Believe as you will! Do we dare?

Tradition does not maintain that Judas was one of the two thieves who died next to Jesus. I, for one, do not think it really matters, in terms of one's personal belief, or relationship with God, whether or not Jesus died on the cross. The emphasis is altogether wrong, imo, if this is what we're focusing on.

Maybe he had further obligations which required a physical body. What Christian would doubt for a moment that this was his own business, and if it was God's will, it was also His? In some ways, it makes many of the apocryphal stories of Christ's continued visits to the Apostles, and to people in various lands, easier to believe!

The bottom line here, is that various denominations of even just Protestant Christianity maintain diverging beliefs about just exactly what transpired, and why & how, and what impact that has on us today. Now consider that Catholicism teaches another wide range of interpretations entirely, while Orthodox Christianity will give you yet another "flavor." But wait, we must not dismiss Unitarian Universalists, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Swedenborgians, Gnostic Christians, and ... should I go on? lol

What I love about CR is that we can just say, What do you think, and we know that de facto, anything said is opinion, and no one here speaks as "an official," save for the mods, and that's a different hat altogether!

This kind of response, is more interesting to me, than a simple rundown of what each denomination preaches! Instead of simply arguing back and forth, whether Jesus might not have traveled around, or perhaps survived the Crucifixion through Brahmanic/Yogic techniques ... I think it would make much more sense to ask What IF he actually did!

One thing I know for certain. We can believe precisely this, and live as true Christians, faithful to ourselves, to Christ, to God. The implications (of all of this) - are what's important to me! Therefore, for the sake of those who would otherwise feel confused - , we also need to balance these questions, of the "lost years" and death/no-death on the cross, with one of far greater importance: How do we see Christ today?

taijasi

 

[Dondi]

I suppose anything is possible. The question is: Is it likely? With all these various theories being probagated with the Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, and the emergence of Gnostic interest, there are undoubtably going to be questions like this. The other day I walked into a book store and saw no less that 8 books out in just out in front near the best sellers shelf pertaining to Jesus and the recent trend to explore alternate Christian views.

I, for one, am one who is influenced by evidence. Evidence that point to the likelihood of a certain event. The fact is that the Biblical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), along with the Pauline and Apostolic epistles of the New Testament are the closest documents we have to the actual events. There are over 5000 manuscripts or partial manuscripts dating back to the early second century which collaborated together lends accuracy to the New Testament document. The New Testament canon has been established and has stood the test of time up until this day.

But now all these aberrant "gospels" pop up and we are now just supposed to believe them? Most of these "gospels" are dated centuries after their supposed occurance and the documented evidence is scant. And we are now to believe that Jesus fathered a child via Mary Magdeline? Or that Judas was a good guy after all? Or that Jesus escaped the Cross and disappeared to India and lived out the rest of His life as some kind of guru? Where is the evidence for this? Why are people suddenly trying to dismiss the evidence as presented in the Biblical Gospels after 2000 years as the accepted Gospel Truth?

Sure, you can believe what you want to, but does your belief really hold water?

 

[taijasi]

But now all these aberrant "gospels" pop up and we are now just supposed to believe them? Most of these "gospels" are dated centuries after their supposed occurance and the documented evidence is scant. And we are now to believe that Jesus fathered a child via Mary Magdeline? Or that Judas was a good guy after all? Or that Jesus escaped the Cross and disappeared to India and lived out the rest of His life as some kind of guru? Where is the evidence for this? Why are people suddenly trying to dismiss the evidence as presented in the Biblical Gospels after 2000 years as the accepted Gospel Truth?

Sure, you can believe what you want to, but does your belief really hold water?

Hold water, yes, and I'll agree with you on one thing here. When traditions which definitely date back (some more than 2000 years even) are challenged, the onus is on the `challenger' to provide the evidence for alternate views. But would you not agree that a reasonable person, given sufficient evidence for some of the above (I do not buy the Dan Brown bit and notions of "the Jesus line," as I hold to another view of Apostolic Succession), should alter one's views, if they can be demonstrated false?

Naturally, you would agree, and as long as we can keep things hypothetical, this is all well and good. Friendly debate can only add to our understanding! But what constitutes evidence? I'm quite serious in asking this, for I think it can be demonstrated amply, even abundantly, to any reasonable, non-biased, unprejudiced person that most of the evidence is for these so-called "aberrant" theories ... and in fact, against the traditional gospel stories, at least if literally read and applied dead-letter, with no consideration given to the symbolism, allegory, and underlying deeper meaning to be found (which is always implicit, and made explicit only occasionally, and certainly for the greatest possible benefit of the greatest number).

I could go on, but suffice it to say, that yes, it does make a difference for some of us ... and certainly I am not interested in transforming the man called Yeshua ben Josef into anything that he was not, whether that be father of children through MM, or Eastern Yogi. sighhh ... Simple fact of the matter is, we're playing with people's literal image of God, here. If I thought simple historical matters was what was important, I'd go through all the motions of providing "evidence," only to see it all seized upon and get directed to another thread, and left as driftwood.

My point is not simply that Jesus may have traveled East (a forgone conclusion for some) ... but the much more important one that the "policing" of the `Jesus image' is an interesting, if dubious matter altogether! I press the point because it challenges the very notion that somehow there is a copyright stamp on the good name and person of Christed Jesus!

In truth, every single person who says something has conditioned this image, this name, this concept of a man, by merely posting his or her viewpoint. And let me ask this: how important is it that we reach out to brush aside something put on the table, just because it isn't what we're used to seeing?

I have no interest in stirring folks up, thus I'm happy to let the winds of opposition blow across this subject (this post, certainly), and any other aspect of Penguin's initial questioning and speculation ... as such winds may be invoked thus to blow. Allow, however, even for a few precious moments, the crystalline images within one's mind to shatter, and I wonder - yes I do, what would the Christ (Jesus) within them, reveal?

Do not worry. Our thoughts tend to form again along the old lines just as quickly ... if we do not like the alternative that presents itself. Yes for many years I have been searching, and still I search, for the magic Truth-potion, the Holy Grail of answers regarding this man Jesus of Nazareth, which will sweep away all doubt, all questioning, all speculation, all vague hint of uncertainty and openness to some other idea.

I haven't found it. But I have learned that we each cast Christ somewhat in our own image, and this is a distortion of the Truth which is. Our struggle is to come to know Christ within, each on our own - Theodidactus, and in saying this I do celebrate and agree with the Spirit of Protestantism ... while differing on so, so many of the particulars.

So long as the work is a building work, it is the Good Work. Destruction, too, is good, but I don't think we need to concern ourselves with that. It occurs naturally, and doesn't need any help! To tear down the image of a Living, Loving Christ, as personified through Jesus of Nazareth, whose life and story are recorded in the canonical Gospels (and many, many Aprocryphal and Gnostic accounts), is not a noble goal. To question our understanding, and constantly apply the light of new scientific discoveries and reasonable speculations after 2000 years of human progress ... Now that's a noble goal!

Some would know the truth purely for academic reasons. I trust most such scholars will find themselves transfixed & transformed by the magic that ensues! Others (and I think I am among this group) are pursuing the quest as the very search for Identity, and a raison d'etre - a Purpose, and I know from my own experience that this can be a lonely and a difficult journey. Sounds a bit Universal, eh?

Every one of us, who is drawn to the Christian Faith, regardless of her particular calling (story, background, and particulars of belief) - every one of us has an understanding that we've evolved over time and which has meaning for us. If we can add to that, and especially if this will help us, and even help us to help others in some way ... then this registers as Good to me!

taijasi

 

[taijasi]

I would like to know what your thoughts are on the following please. I would like to state that this in no way reflects my thoughts and is something I have put together quickly from other sources. Many thanks.

Btw, Penguin, I forgot to ask a very important question!!! Forgive me ...

From what sources did you compile the account you provided, why did you compile this information (since you say it "in no way reflects [your] thoughts"), and what do you think? Clearly many at CR - both Christians and otherwise - are open to these possibilities. Others would say that these ideas are "unnecessary inventions" or even detract from the story they've come to hold sacred. It's the how and the why of it that seems most important to me!

Dondi, to give at least a little substance to my own belief, since you asked for evidence - I would submit the following: Many scholars have shown a definite similarity between the Essene teachings & precepts for living, and those of Buddhism. It cannot be denied that Buddhist missionaries existed both in Egypt and in Asia Minor well over 2,000 years ago. Scholars who have maintained this view include Schilling, Schopenhauer, Higgins, King, Lassen and Millman. King writes, in The Gnostics and their Remains, that most of Asia Minor's mystical sects were derived from India and have a Buddhist background. This is also true of the Therapeutae of Egypt.

What does this tell us by itself? Perhaps nothing that we didn't already know, or couldn't learn through a little research. But now let's combine this awareness with the possibility that Jesus traveled first to Egypt, and after studying the (already ancient) Mystery Traditions there (do you know much about these?), to the Orient. Why would Jesus be seeking out these various traditions, and studying there? Answer: To go to the source!

If one regards the life of Jesus of Nazareth as a depiction of the Quest for Truth as undertaken by every yearning human soul ... (and no greater significance could it have for us, imho) ... then we must accept that the life of Christ shows the stages of this journey. Imo, the latter stages of the journey are depicted for us in the main events of Birth, Baptism, Transfiguration, Renunciation, and Resurrection/Ascension. Yet there is an awfully long time between the first stage and the second, and this corresponds to the greater portion of our own, individual quest for truth - the Hall of Learning, leading to the Hall of Wisdom.

I do not doubt for a moment that during these years of early adulthood and young manhood, Jesus learned through hard work and through his intimacy with his Brethren, wherever he travelled. Clearly this was so. But the notion that this, God's Son, would have been illiterate, simple-minded, and in so many respects ordinary ... until magically, one day "down by the river" the Dove just descended out of nowhere (!) ... and BAM!

Errr, I don't dig. It's just not smooth & sequential, much less logical ... and I do not think it's meant to be swallowed whole. However, for Jesus to have gone to the best Universities, the most ancient of Teachers, and spent time with those who were renowned even in that time as the Wisest of the Wise (Pythagoras, Plato, and many of the Greek philosophers again, trace their lineage to Egypt, thence to India, Tibet, and the Himalayas) ... now that makes good sense! He would have both learned and taught, and all the while been preparing for the Greatest Mission that any Divine Emissary has ever undertaken - or at least, so do Christians believe.

I will add one small anecdote as additional evidence that Jesus could easily have traveled East to learn "from the source." There is a tradition among some, and the story has now reached the West such that literally millions are familiar with it (research "Wesak Blessing/Legend"), that the same Shakyamuni Buddha whom history knew as Siddharta Gautama, did not enter highest Nirvana ~2500 years ago and float away from the Earth altogether. The idea has always been preserved that the Buddha retained his Trikaya (spiritual bodies, which make Earthly contact possible) and once each year reappeared to the faithful (the purest of heart) to give a tremendous Blessing, bestowed gradually throughout the year to all the planet. And along with this tradition is the belief that in some rare cases, even as late as the 15th (or even 19th) Century ... the Lord Sangyas (Buddha) was known to make brief appearances, under what we might describe as mystical circumstances. Why then, should it be difficult for us to imagine that 2,000 years ago - when the need of the world was great, and the discipline & necessary sacrifice was to be found in Jesus of Nazareth - that the latter travelled Eastward and actually "met" the Buddha himself?

My own interest is not to find a connection where none exists. Either Jesus did or did not make these travels, and even if he did, he might or might not have actually learned from Shakyamuni Buddha. It's just one possibility. And if Jesus survived the Crucifixion, perhaps not even as an expectation - but rather, as a lucky twist of fate - then why should this invalidate the least bit of his mission and accomplishment? I think we've been here before, but I try to raise the question this time purely in the light of speculation as to the role of Jesus of Nazareth in human psychology (of the spirit, if one prefers) - and whether that might not be Universal, rather than purely in historical context.

It seems to me that some perceive such an idea as an effort to drag the Universal out of a religion which has too many particulars. And I may be guilty of that. Because I do believe that the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth had implications for us all, and I think it was a labor of love for all of Humanity, and not just the select few. Christ did not, however, unify the East and West once and for all. The traditions remain to a great extent disparate, and to ignore the differences is to slight both Buddhists/Hindus and Abrahamists. But believing in Jesus' travels Eastward as I do, I find it much easier to accept that God has always had a Plan for unifying all the Sons of Men, who are also the (lost/forgotten) Sons of God. Jesus served a vital role in helping to plant some of the seeds of Unification even 2000 years ago, just as Appollonius of Tyana did after him, and Pythagoras even 500 years prior. The work continues to this day, as we so fortunately reap the Blessings those Great Ones sowed ... and imo, this is one of the great pieces of work for which the Christ descends into the world today - not the just the uniting of East & West, in terms of religion, but all people everywhere, and through the stimulating of the One Spirit that dwells within us all, no matter our ethnic background, religious experience, or articles of faith.

I know this is a bit much, and I'm thinking it actually belongs on a different forum ... yet it all proceeds from Penguin's question, and yours, Dondi - so here it is! Apologies if it's a little peripheral to the bulk of discussion on `Christianity.'

Peace,

taijasi

 

[Dondi]

It is one thing to explore different possibilities on the identity of the Person of Christ, through scripture, tradition, and within one's own life experiences. It is quite another thing to distort what has already been established about Him.

Yes, their is room for different interpretations of scripture. That is why we have so many denominations. But most mainline and orthodox denominations, whether Protestant or Catholic, will agree to the basic essentials of Christianity, the foremost being the the literal death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anything short of this and you are no longer within the Christian paradigm, no matter how many labels you wish to put on yourself.

To quote the Apostle Paul:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" - I Corinthians 15:1-4

And in the same chapter:

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." - I Corinthians 15:13-19


This is the Crux of the whole Message. Once we start tampering with this essential Truth of the Gospels, then we have lost it. We ought no longer consider ourselves a Christian. For then the Hope of what has been taught is gone.

 

[taijasi]

I knew it! I just wasted over an hour's worth of honest effort, Dondi. And yes, I acknowledge that I was out on a limb to post non-mainstream ideas ... sighhhh ....

Next time, if you really don't care, and if the evidence presented (regardless of its source, nature, soundness, verifiability, logic, etc.) - is only so much wasted breath & keystrokes ... please just say so. And you have my word, I won't burden you with the unwelcomed ideas ...

By the way, in my book, it really doesn't mean a hill of beans whether you judge me as a Christian, decent human being, or 6' tall lump of clay.

We ought no longer consider ourselves a Christian.

But I'm sure glad the "decisions" aren't yours to make.

"Christ-ian" - one who models herself after Christ, or seeks to do as, Christ would do ... yes? WWJD - hmmmm ...

The line drawn is the sword Christ spoke of, when he said to Peter, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." He also said, As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.

Inclusiveness is like the Radius of a circle, drawn in opposite directions from the center to the circumference, then diverging, moving in a 90 degree arc, and returning inward upon itself - lo, to once again find the center!

And what is the figure which results ... ?

In Love and Light

taijasi

 

[wil]

Jesus Christ was born in the holy land and left when he was about 13 and went to an area in India to study a form of Buddhism. He returned to the holy lands when he was about 28 years old.

This story has circulated but there is not a high percentage of Christians believing it.

There is no account of the life of Jesus in the bible for between these ages.

correct

He preached and healed people with methods, (which had never been seen before) with herbal and natural medicines, which were seen as miracles by the people in the area.

according to biblical accounts he stood out as a healer, they don't reference herbs, but healings of faith, herbs, tinctures, spiritual healings were known and accomplished during his time, it is the numerous instantaneous spiritual faith healings that differentiated him from others

Upon crucifixion Jesus was on the cross for alot shorter time than usual as there was a Sabbath due on the Saturday and they wanted him and the other two condemned men removed as soon as possible. The legs of the other two were broken to speed up their deaths and instead of Jesus having his legs broken a lance was stabbed into his side first to see if he was still alive. There was no response so he was removed and presumed dead (Buddhist meditation training made him able to do this) He was taken away to a cave and given various herbal & natural medicines and was resuscitated.

He was on the cross hours rather than days and there is much debate in this regard, not a lot amongst Christian believers though

Upon a full recovery he managed to go east to Kashmir in India, going west would have been pointless as Europe was occupied heavily by Roman forces. He lived the rest of his years in India under a different identity and shortly before his death he revealed who he really was, passed away and was buried here. http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm
There are carvings here on the floor that show whoever is buried in the coffin has the wounds of crucifixion on his feet.

again you've discribed one of many stories which contradicts conventional christian beliefs, and which is the belief of some.

Can somebody tell me if one of the other two men crucified with Jesus was Judas please?

No he was not, not according to biblical accounts.

Tis a struggle, when one is a lost soul, to go thru all the conflicting information from the variety of sources out there. Tis why many stick with the Bible, or whatever spiritual text one uses and recommends other faithful not stray and be confused by dissenting opinion. You've chosen to be open to a variety of thought and are likely to spend some time in the desert as you sift through it all. Whether it is 40 days or 40 years, for many this is a valuable experience.

 

[lunamoth]

It is one thing to explore different possibilities on the identity of the Person of Christ, through scripture, tradition, and within one's own life experiences. It is quite another thing to distort what has already been established about Him.

Yes, their is room for different interpretations of scripture. That is why we have so many denominations. But most mainline and orthodox denominations, whether Protestant or Catholic, will agree to the basic essentials of Christianity, the foremost being the the literal death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anything short of this and you are no longer within the Christian paradigm, no matter how many labels you wish to put on yourself.

To quote the Apostle Paul:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" - I Corinthians 15:1-4

And in the same chapter:

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." - I Corinthians 15:13-19


This is the Crux of the whole Message. Once we start tampering with this essential Truth of the Gospels, then we have lost it. We ought no longer consider ourselves a Christian. For then the Hope of what has been taught is gone.

Good post Dondi. I agree.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

I knew it! I just wasted over an hour's worth of honest effort, Dondi. And yes, I acknowledge that I was out on a limb to post non-mainstream ideas ... sighhhh ....

Next time, if you really don't care, and if the evidence presented (regardless of its source, nature, soundness, verifiability, logic, etc.) - is only so much wasted breath & keystrokes ... please just say so. And you have my word, I won't burden you with the unwelcomed ideas ...

By the way, in my book, it really doesn't mean a hill of beans whether you judge me as a Christian, decent human being, or 6' tall lump of clay.

But I'm sure glad the "decisions" aren't yours to make.

"Christ-ian" - one who models herself after Christ, or seeks to do as, Christ would do ... yes? WWJD - hmmmm ...

The line drawn is the sword Christ spoke of, when he said to Peter, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." He also said, As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.

Inclusiveness is like the Radius of a circle, drawn in opposite directions from the center to the circumference, then diverging, moving in a 90 degree arc, and returning inward upon itself - lo, to once again find the center!

And what is the figure which results ... ?

In Love and Light

taijasi

Hi taijasi,

You put forth a very strong statement about what you think qualifies as a 'full-fledged Christian,' and one that many would disagree with, yet Dondi did not complain. He merely put forth the much more widely accepted paradigm of Christian doctrine.

I personally enjoy reading your views here, but if you can't take the heat...

peace,
lunamoth

 

[taijasi]

Hi taijasi,

You put forth a very strong statement about what you think qualifies as a 'full-fledged Christian,' and one that many would disagree with, yet Dondi did not complain. He merely put forth the much more widely accepted paradigm of Christian doctrine.

I personally enjoy reading your views here, but if you can't take the heat...

peace,
lunamoth

Luna,

I think that "full-fledged" Christian is, on the whole, a rather inclusive concept (clearly not all-inclusive, else why bother distinguishing religious beliefs at all!). Certainly there are many takes on it, and I know that my POV is in the minority!

No problem taking the heat. I just have to pause where I am, and walk the razor-edged path back out. How's my back look? See the tucked tail?

taijasi

 

[lunamoth]

Luna,

I think that "full-fledged" Christian is, on the whole, a rather inclusive concept (clearly not all-inclusive, else why bother distinguishing religious beliefs at all!). Certainly there are many takes on it, and I know that my POV is in the minority!

No problem taking the heat. I just have to pause where I am, and walk the razor-edged path back out. How's my back look? See the tucked tail?

taijasi

Hi taij, I think your desire for inclusivity is admirable, and you know that I have my own views that are not shared by all other Christians. 'Course, it does get to the point where if everything is meaningful then nothing is. Sorry to have chided you there a bit and in spite of the tone I do not mean to chase you out. I was just observing that you can't expect to put forth admittedly fringe views and then complain when others counter with their own.

peace,
Laurie

 

[Dondi]

No, taijasi, you didn't waste you effort. I actually appreciate your dissertation on the possibilities of Jesus' travels to the East, as unlikely as I think that to be. You talk about a need for Jesus to experience some sort of formal training during His formative years and that He obtained this from all kind of esoteric sourses. Well I counter this be saying that He did have formal training, right there in Jerusalem. Do you not recall when Jesus was twelve He was found in the Temple astounding the Teachers of the Law with his answers:

"And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." - Luke 2:42-52

Jesus was called Rabbi and Master on occasion, which lends to the idea that He didn't stop at age twelve, rather He must have gone to the Temple quite often and received formal training from the doctors of the Torah and the Prophets. He needn't have traveled anywhere. Most of His teachings and parables are taken from Jewish rabbis and some claim that he might have even been taught in the Pharistical tradition. He really didn't teach anything new. The commandment to Love God and Love thy neighbor is the focal point of His teachings, just as it was for Moses.

He grew in wisdom and stature, so by the time He started His ministry, He was well prepared to preach to those who would listen.

As for similarities between the teachings of Christ and Buddhism, that only proves the universality of Christ's message. As I've said, he really didn't teach anything that wasn't taught before. And I believe elements of the basic "Golden Rule" message had spread all over the world by time of the Advent of Christ.


Nor am I judging you whether or not you are a Christian. That's Someone else's job. But I do take a stand on teachings when it comes to Christianity.

Interesting that you would define "Christ-ian" as one who models oneself, or seeks to do as, Christ would do. What does that mean exactly? I suppose that depends on the source. WWJD? Well, if you believe the word of the canonical Bible, then we would be modeling ourselves after the canonical teachings. If you believe that there are some esoteric Indian teachings that Jesus left behind in some obscure document, then perhaps you would be modeling yourself after that. Or you could believe in a supplimental testament of Jesus Christ that was buried for some 1400 years before being found in a rural area of New York. Whatever, I guess. What difference does it make if it tells us we can become gods of our own planet and produce spiritual children to populate that world, just as God once did? Is that the reality?

I'm all for being inclusive, but not at the expense of the message. I believe that one ought to seek God, for He is a close as your heart. That is universal as well. but by the same token, I don't feel the need to be confused by every wind of doctrine, even those that are contradictory to what has already been taught in Christianity. There is truth in every religion, but if one believes in Christianity in this particular forum, then one ought to stick with the status quo.

BTW, My thinking is close to what lunamoth believes. While I believe that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, I believe that the application of that statement is more universal than conventional Christianity would believe, but I gather this from my own study of the Scriptures. So I'm not as exclusive as you might think.

Your right though, this thread would probably been better in some other forum, perhaps in a Esoteric Christian Mysticism thread.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

jesus died, then he rose again, because he has the power of life.

 

[wil]

Your right though, this thread would probably been better in some other forum, perhaps in a Esoteric Christian Mysticism thread.

Would it? What is the difference? Is Esoteric Christian Mysticism more accepting? or less Christian? I'm so confused, I am loving that all of us can have our respective opinions, beliefs, issues and understandings and openly discuss these nuances...

So back to Penguins post and Christianity...

Would Jesus having traveled to India and learned some aspects from another theology be detrimental to Christianity?


If he 'beat the cross' by his own volition or assistance of the disciples (whom he taught healing) would that destroy Christianity? (ie could it survive this?)


If Christ on the cross and the resurection is an incredible allegory (similar to creation and the garden) to the ability of each of us to attain a stronger connection with G-d than we have with the material earthly world...would that not benefit all mankind?

These are questions, not statements, posed in the same tenor as Penguin's original post.

I think the answers of all will allow us a deeper understanding of each others current beliefs/thoughts and possibly our own.

 

[Dondi]

Would it? What is the difference? Is Esoteric Christian Mysticism more accepting? or less Christian? I'm so confused, I am loving that all of us can have our respective opinions, beliefs, issues and understandings and openly discuss these nuances...

This is a Christian forum. I was merely suggesting that if one wishes to discuss teachings abherrant to the traditional Christian doctrine, then it ought be discussed elsewhere. What the OP is suggesting falls well past what can be considered the pail of orthodox Christianity. Or is it too much to ask that we respect that? Just as we should respect the other Abrahamic religions when we go into their forums.

 

[wil]

Namaste Dondi

What the OP is suggesting falls well past what can be considered the pail of orthodox Christianity.

Suggesting?? It appears to me we have a lost soul that is inquisitive...do we send them out of the Christianity forum to find their own way? Doesn't sound Christian

I would like to know what your thoughts are on the following please. I would like to state that this in no way reflects my thoughts and is something I have put together quickly from other sources. Many thanks.

Or is it too much to ask that we respect that? Just as we should respect the other Abrahamic religions when we go into their forums.

Not at all, we are inquiring as to the scope and breadth of this wonderful loving Christian faith.

 

[lunamoth]

IMO this topic pushes the envelope on the COC as one of the very few guidelines for the Christianity board is this:

"The Christianity board has a remit to discuss mainstream Christian beliefs across denominations, where the founding doctrine is that Jesus Christ offers sole salvation to humanity though His Death on the cross."

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[Dondi]

Suggesting?? It appears to me we have a lost soul that is inquisitive...do we send them out of the Christianity forum to find their own way? Doesn't sound Christian Not at all, we are inquiring as to the scope and breadth of this wonderful loving Christian faith.

We send him out already if we aren't answering his question in conventional orthodox way. He is seeking a Christian answer in a Christian forum. So wouldn't it be prudent give a traditional Christian reponse.

I have no problem in responding in an unconventional manner, just not here.

I would like to ask the moderator that this thread be moved to the Beliefs and Spirituality in this case.

 

[bruceg]

Agree 100% Dondi & Luna - within the Christianity forum, the rules are on the sticky post at http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2414

Asking the original question and the 'mainstream' Christian answers is reasonable here (Christianity board) - with the mainstream answer being "Nope. Not the case - contrary to liturgical evidence & belief".

The esoteric answers from wil & taijisi properly belong in a Christian esoterica section. Brian is working on a re-working of the section containing esoterica (including a renaming to Alternative from Pagan..). The best bet is that it belongs to the Mysticism board under Alternative (Esoterica being focussed on more new age pieces) right now. Thread moved there.