Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?

[Divine Insight]

I believe that Jesus was a man who fully realized his identity in God, and his message was that we all can do the same. I think he would be appalled by the religion that has grown around that teaching.

I have no problem with that at all. In fact, I feel much the same way. I can see Jesus being just another Buddha. In fact, that's precisely what I personally see Jesus as having been.

But you need to understand that Christianity is NOT about Jesus.

Christianity is about hold Jesus up to be the "Sacrificial Lamb of the God of Abraham" sent via a miraculous virgin birth, with the PLAN in mind to have him ultimately crucified by the hands of men to "PAY" for the sins and salvation of mankind.

That is what Christianity is all about. It's not about the teachings of Jesus.

It's about holding Jesus up as an excuse to support many disgusting things from the Old Testament, such as "God hates homosexuality", and "God hates heathens and non-believers", etc.

Christianity is about using Jesus as a idol to condemn anyone who refuses to climb on board the whole Christian religious-bigotry wagon.

From the original authors of these fables:

Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

These are the kinds of non-nonsensical things that are being held out by Christianity.

It's not at all about the teachings of Jesus. It's about using Jesus as a patsy to support religious bigotry in Jesus name.

It's also not about what Jesus taught. It's about using Jesus to support the entire biblical cannon as the "Word of God" including the Old Testament and most of the New Testament that was actually written by Paul (not by Jesus)

Most of Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.

I have no problem with the teachings of Jesus. As far as I'm concerned they are precisely the same teachings as those of Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, and others.

Christianity isn't about Jesus. It's about holding Jesus up as the "Sacrificial Lamb" of the God of Abraham who must be accepted as such lest the people are refusing to accept this and give their support to the overall religion be branded as "Heathens" who have rejected God.


That is the basis of Christianity. Not Jesus.

Christianity has every little to do with Jesus. It has far more to do with Paul and the Old Testament than it has to do with Jesus.

Where in these fables did Jesus offer prophecy for the the coming of Paul?

He didn't, yet most of the New Testament is the ramblings of Paul, not Jesus.

In fact, Jesus didn't write a single solitary word in the entire Bible.

Not one word of it. It's all hearsay rumors by the author's own confessions.

I don't reject Jesus.

I reject Christianity.

To me, Jesus was just another Buddha, and I respect all Buddhas.

[jimvansage]

I'm not going to convince you, but I have reasons for believing what I believe

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (Mt. 5:17)

Jesus answered [to Pilate -JVS], Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:11)

I'll find my research on historical sources - Josephus, Pliny and Trajan, the Talmud to name the few I can think of off the top of my head

[Divine Insight]

I'm not going to convince you, but I have reasons for believing what I believe

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (Mt. 5:17)

Sure, these fables are riddled with self-contradictions like this. Clearly Jesus did teach the opposite of the laws of the old prophets. So if he actually said these words then clearly he was a liar, because his actions and teachings violate his own proclamation.

Either Jesus was a liar, or these hearsay fables can't be trusted to be the verbatim words and meanings of Jesus. I choose to believe the latter.

Jesus answered [to Pilate -JVS], Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:11)

Again, if Jesus actually said these words, then clearly Pilate's power over Jesus was given to Pilate from above. Because Pilate clearly had power over Jesus if you read the rest of the this chapter of John you'll see that Pilate successfully had Jesus crucified.

I'll find my research on historical sources - Josephus, Pliny and Trajan, the Talmud to name the few I can think of off the top of my head

I personally don't accept more hearsay rumors to be "Historical Sources".

A true historical source would need to take one of two forms:

1. It's an actual record recorded by a larger historical society and well recognized to be such.

OR
2. It would be many records of the masses, where everyone is basically claiming to have witnessed the same events.

The things you're talking about here could easily just be more hearsay rumors from a very selected few individuals.

Do you realize that all of Christianity stands upon the gospels (i.e. gossip) of less than a handful of individual authors? Many of whom were merely commenting on the writings of previous authors.

As far as the actual four "Gospels" Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, they basically reduce to just TWO. Most clerical scholars are convinced that the writings of Matthew and Luke are just hearsay retelling of the gossip of Mark. And the writings of John are possibly merely a different opinion on those rumors.

There really is not worthy merit to these fables. They are the superstitions of a very few men. Certainly not what I would expect to be an inspired work of the creator of this universe.

[jimvansage]

The things you're talking about here could easily just be more hearsay rumors from a very selected few individuals.

~Could be, but might not be. How can we be certain?

As far as the actual four "Gospels" Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, they basically reduce to just TWO. Most clerical scholars are convinced that the writings of Matthew and Luke are just hearsay retelling of the gossip of Mark. And the writings of John are possibly merely a different opinion on those rumors.

~That's a possibility, or they could have been written by four individual authors.
Making a claim isn't proof, on either side of the issue.
Denying my interpretation of the seventy weeks prophecy doesn't mean it's not accurate.

Denying that Isaiah 53 implies a resurrection of the "suffering servant' does not make it untrue.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

If we assume that ANYTHING (Gospel or otherwise) that mentions Jesus or Christ as a historical figure as hearsay, then we're dismissing Suetonius and nearly everything we know about Roman History. You're holding anything that mentions Jesus/Christ to a standard you would never uphold to any other figure in history.

[Divine Insight]

You're holding anything that mentions Jesus/Christ to a standard you would never uphold to any other figure in history.

Absolutely. And rightfully so.

It doesn't really matter whether any other historical figures ever actually lived. For example, men like Copernicus and Galileo could have been entirely fictional myths. But that still wouldn't change the fact, that the universe does not revolve around the Earth.

Charles Darwin could have been a totally made up rumor, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence for evolution today is overwhelming.

The rumors of both the God of Abraham, and the rumors of Jesus supposedly having been his miraculously virgin-born demigod son who was sent to pay for the sins of men, has no external evidence beyond these rumors.

So the situation with Jesus is totally different from any other historical character.

Extraordinary claim that cannot be supported by independent evidence require extraordinary evidence. No such extraordinary evidence exists in the case of Jesus. On the contrary the evidence that these rumors are entirely made up superstitious fiction is profound. (as I will address next)

The things you're talking about here could easily just be more hearsay rumors from a very selected few individuals.

~Could be, but might not be. How can we be certain?

I can be certain that the New Testament rumors are false precisely because there is no independent historical "noise" concerning the outrageous claims that are being made within these stories.

These stories have Jesus going all over the place with large masses of people following him around whilst he heals "all manner of sickness" and even raises people from the dead.

Yet there is absolutely no independent historical record or even "background noise" concerning the masses having witnessed any such profound events.

These stories proclaim that "God spoke from a cloud" to a large mass of people saying, "This is my son in whom I'm well-pleased, hear him". Yet the only place we hear of this in these biblical rumors. There is no independent historical record of anyone hearing God speak from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.

Are we supposed to believe that the people who heard God himself speak from a cloud never bothered to pass that information on historically? I don't buy that.

These stories also claim that when Jesus was resurrected so too were a multitude of saints who were "jostled from their graves" and rose physically from their graves. Basically what we would call zombies. They supposedly went into the Holy City of Jerusalem and "Showed themselves to the people there".

Yet there is absolutely no independent historical record or even "background noise" concerning the masses having witnessed these Zombie Saints who supposedly went into the Holy City and showed themselves to the people there.

As far as I'm concerned this total absence of any independent historical record or even "noise", is convincing evidence to me that no such events ever happened outside the minds of the men who made up these superstitious rumors.

Lack of independent historical evidence in these cases is "evidence" that these things never actually happened, IMHO.

Moreover, the people in Jerusalem would have mainly been Jews. Yet the Jews themselves reject these rumors. So clearly they didn't see any God speaking from a cloud, nor did they see any zombie saints coming into their Holy City showing themselves.

The lack of independent historical evidence for these New Testament rumors tells me that the New Testament rumors are indeed extreme superstitious exaggerations (at best), and potentially outright fabricated lies at worst.

I simple see no reason whatsoever to give them any merit.

I would I certainly tell that to any "God" who might have been involved in these things. After all, if such a God exists shouldn't HONESTY be more important than anything else?

In all HONESTY, the claims being made in the New Testament are outrageous, unbelievable, and there is more than sufficient, sane, and highly righteous reasons, to dismiss them as being nothing more than runaway superstitious nonsense.

That is my TRUTH, and so even if there is a God associated with these outrageous stories, then I must tell that God the TRUTH. I must be truthful with this God and confess that these stories are totally unbelievable.

You'd think that an omniscient God should already know that they would be. Yet another reason to believe that no such God would be involved with something so outrageously unbelievable.

To me, that itself is "evidence" that no "all-wise" God could be connected with such absurd and unbelievable stories.

Denying my interpretation of the seventy weeks prophecy doesn't mean it's not accurate.

Denying my observations that there are no rational reasons to believe the outrageously absurd claims being made in the New Testament doesn't mean that my observations are no accurate either.

Denying that Isaiah 53 implies a resurrection of the "suffering servant' does not make it untrue.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

These things in Isaiah don't point to Jesus. Moreover, the authors of the Gospels were clearly writing their fables with the Old Testament in-hand. They often referred to the writings of the Old Testament trying to "Make a Case" that Jesus was this promised messiah. So naturally when writing their fables they were using the Old Testament as a guide for what they needed to make Jesus 'appear to be'. But their claims about Jesus are themselves highly inconsistent and self-contradicting.

If we assume that ANYTHING (Gospel or otherwise) that mentions Jesus or Christ as a historical figure as hearsay, then we're dismissing Suetonius and nearly everything we know about Roman History. You're holding anything that mentions Jesus/Christ to a standard you would never uphold to any other figure in history.

You're going off the deep end here. I'm not saying that at all.

On the contrary, I personally believe that some guy (possibly named Jesus or whatever) did indeed teach against the immoral teachings of the Torah, call the Pharisees hypocrites, and may very well have ultimately been crucified.

All of that could have happened, and it doesn't imply that this man was the son of God, or anything like that.

On the contrary my guess is that this Jesus fellow was most likely a pantheistic-minded Jew who was very well-versed in Mahayana Buddhism. That would explain why he proclaimed to be "One with the Father" and when questioned about what he meant by that he pointed to the Torah itself and proclaim that even in the Torah Isaiah said, "Have I not said, yet are gods?"

Moreover, it also explains why Jesus would have acted as a Bodhisattva (i.e. taking on disciples and teaching them the truth of life). That is the way of the Mahayana Buddhists. In fact, most Mahayana Buddhists wouldn't even take on disciples unless they promise to become a Bodhisattva themselves (i.e. teachers of the truth of spirituality).

So the behaviors attributed to Jesus are very much in perfect harmony with how a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva would behave and teach.

Moreover, you might do well to learn about Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana means "The Great Vehicle". To the Mahayana Buddhists it's not important how you view "God". How you behave is the key.

And that was what Jesus was all about. Teaching right thought, right action, and right speech. Precisely what Buddhism is all about. And if you want to believe that "God" appears as Yahweh, or Zeus, or a Moon Goddess or a Sun God, it doesn't matter. None of that matters. All that matters is right though, right action, and right speech. (the fundamentals of Buddhism)

So I wouldn't need to renounce that claims Suetonius. I imagine that some guy did indeed live, taught, rebelled against the teachings of the Torah and the Pharisees, and was indeed potentially crucified for his public views and teachings.

You could historically find the cross that Jesus was nailed to, you could find the spikes, and a complete record of Roman execution (even though the Roman didn't execute him the Pharisees did!)

And you still wouldn't have proof (or even credible evidence) that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham sent through a virgin birth as a demigod to pay for the sins of man.

I would still argue even in the face of absolute evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified, that it's still highly unlikely that the superstitious rumors in the New Testament have any value or truth.

And as I point out, even if there is any truth to those rumors, I would once again need to HONEST and SINCERE with the God behind them and confess to that God that I feel his methods are truly insane, unbelievable, and utterly absurd.

That is my TRUTH, and supposedly it's not good to hold the TRUTH back from a God.

I would be gravely disappointed in any supreme being who would be part of such a convoluted and ultimately (IMHO) sick and disturbing means of attempting to communicate with his creation.

IMHO, there can only be two possible explanations for such a sick God.

1. The God truly is sick and demented (but would that truly be a "God"?)

OR

2. The God was grossly restricted in how he could communicate with humans.

But if the latter is true that violates the idea that this God is supposed to be omnipotent, and that, "With God all things are possible".

In short, IMHO, there is no excuse for a genuinely all-wise all-powerful supreme being to be attempting to communicate to his creation via such sick, outrageous, and truly unbelievable stories that are even being presented to us as highly questionable hearsay rumors, with absolutely no independent historical evidence to back up any of the miraculous unbelievable stuff.

Why would this God have even bothered speaking to a mass of people saying that Jesus is his son if he already knew that they were never going to speak of it again, or record the event historically?

It makes no sense, IMHO. And as I keep repeating, I would need to be TRUTHFUL and HONEST with the Biblical God even if it did exist and tell that God that I think he's the most inept idiot I ever heard of.

How could I ever even begin to pretend to respect, much less love, a deity that I see as being the most insane God-character ever created by mankind?

I would have a very difficult time respecting a supposedly all-wise, omnipotent supreme being who has created such a shambles of a convoluted religion and to even have within it people like Mark and John proclaiming that to merely disbelieve in it is grounds for eternal damnation?

There is nothing "righteous" about such a wicked scheme, IMHO.

It's like saying, "Either believe these outrageously absurd and unbelievable things, or you'll be damned"

What?

And how does that even fit in with the idea of "Morality"

We've moved from a God who used to be concerned with morality, to a God who will condemn people for merely not believing in outrageous baloney.

This is why I call Christianity a "Train-wrecked religion". It's totally derailed from the original idea of morality to now being almost entirely focused on supporting religious bigotry lest God himself will condemn you!

It went from absurd to beyond absurd.

If there is any truth to the existence of a man named Jesus he was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

One thing for certain is that this makes a LOT MORE SENSE!

~~~~

And just for the record, my argument would not be with you. My argument is with the authors of the original biblical rumors.

And like I say, if there an actual "God" associated with these scriptures, then I'd have arguments directly with him as well. These fables are outrageous even if some supposed "supreme being" had a hand in them.

I would highly question the "supremacy" of such a being, especially in terms of his ability to communicate with his very own creation.

To me, even if true, it's nothing more than a picture of an extremely inept God, either that or an extremely sick and demented God which would be even worse.

It's certainly not a religion that I would choose to believe in on "pure faith".

In all honesty I rather have faith that atheism is true.

Fortunately there are other choices.

And I choose to place my faith in those.

~~~~

Although it's recently come to my attention (because Mitt Romney is a Mormon), that Mormonism is a "form of Christianity" that believes that everyone is saved and that we will each be given our own planet in the afterlife.

Now I'm thinking that Mormonism might be worth placing faith in. I've always dreamed of owning my own planet.

I wonder if I get 16 virgins with that too? And maybe a Mercedes Benz?

Actually I'd rather have a Fender Stratocaster and a Marshal Amp.

I wonder if the Mormon God is really just Santa Claus in disguise?

That'd be cool.

[Waiting4evidence]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?

Of course it can.

By INCORRECT logical deduction, but by logical deduction nonetheless.

[jimvansage]

If it's possible that an Almighty God did create the universe, then any miracle, virgin birth or resurrection is just as likely.

You have toadmit that the OT was written before 132 BC, that Jesus of Nazareth was most likely crucified in the first century. If it's likely that he lived and died as such, then there's be no need to examine the many historical references that do mention him - but you can continue to ignore them and say that they are unreliable or interpolations. Bottom line: they are just as probably accurate, "likely" by your own admittance that he lived and was crucified.

Here's our disconnect - You deny any OT prophecy speaks of Jesus of Nazareth before the fact.
You believe Jesus studied Buddhism - some of my friends say He might have traveled to India, but this is completely without historical merit as well.

John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue

It's not surprising that Jewish historians like Philo or anyone else failed to record the miracles which proved Jesus' Deity, even mention him for fear of upsetting the Jewish leaders

Why did Greeks and Romans overlook it?

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:22, 23).

The Athenians called Paul a "babbler" (Acts 17:18). They probably ridiculed him, but didn't take much of the time to refute what he was saying; at least in writing.

[Divine Insight]

If it's possible that an Almighty God did create the universe, then any miracle, virgin birth or resurrection is just as likely.

Sure. But I hold that if such a supposedly all-wise super-intelligent being actually exists, then he/she/it couldn't possibly be stupid enough to have created such an ignorant and demented scenario as having a demigod nailed to a pole to "pay" for the sins of mankind.

I mean no offense to you or your personal beliefs when I say this. I woud say this face-to-face with any supposedly "supreme being" that might actually exist who would have participated in such a disgusting and ignorant drama.

Having read and understood the biblical story from "The Fall From Grace" forward, it is my sincere opinion that no truly omniscient omnipotent God could possibly have been as stupid as these ancient superstitious fables require.

These fables are basically trying to convince me that, "Yes an omniscient omnipotent God actually exists", whist simultaneously demanding that, 'Yes, this omniscient omnipotent God is as inept and ignorant as a barroom drunkard who has the mentality of a 2-year-old.

Keep in mind, my argument is not with you, but with the "God" described in these fables. If my understanding of God from the so-called "Holy Scriptures" is wrong, then the picture I"m rejection is not a correct picture of God. Right?

Surely, you can see the truth in that.

Thus if my understanding of the Hebrew fables is wrong I'm not rejecting God but rather I'm rejecting a false and incorrect picture of God. And thus any truly all-wise supreme being would also be able to grasp and fully understand this very simple fact.

On the other hand, if my understanding of the Hebrew fables is right, then this God truly is an ignorant jerk, but that violates what God is supposed to be like, and thus it could never be true. In that case I would be right and the Hebrew fables don't represent any God to even talk about. Either some other picture of God is more correct, or the atheists are right and there is no God at all.

So I have nothing to fear by rejecting these foolish myths.

You can't very well reject God on the grounds of God being a fool and expect a God to actually accept that as being a genuine rejection of Him unless it's true that he is a fool. Otherwise, if he's not a fool, he would necessarily be wise enough to recognize that the picture of Him that you have rejected is necessary NOT a picture of him.

I reject the biblical picture of God because that picture makes God appear to be a fool. If I'm wrong and God is not a fool, then guess what? Then I'm right to reject the biblical picture of God as I see it because that picture does not truly represent what God is like.

So the only God who could condemn me for not believing in the biblical stories would be a foolish God. But a foolish God is an oxymoron.

And an oxymoronic God is necessarily nothing more than a false myth.

So my position on the matter is 100% sound.

You have toadmit that the OT was written before 132 BC, that Jesus of Nazareth was most likely crucified in the first century. If it's likely that he lived and died as such, then there's be no need to examine the many historical references that do mention him - but you can continue to ignore them and say that they are unreliable or interpolations. Bottom line: they are just as probably accurate, "likely" by your own admittance that he lived and was crucified.

You are grossly misrepresenting my position.

First off, I'm not "Admitting" that "Jesus of Nazareth" ever lived. Especially the "Jesus of Nazareth" as described in the New Testament Rumors.

What I'm saying is that I believe that it's quite plausible (and even highly likely) that some guy did speak out against the immoral teachings of the torah, had a run-in with the Pharisees, publicly renounced the Pharisees as being hypocrites, and was eventually crucified by them unjustly in some manner.

If such an event took place, then this does not in any way support the New Testament rumors about this man. But it does give a plausible event which may have sparked these rumors.

Consider the following scenario:

You are born into this world. You are given a name and associated with parents, and a town, and a culture. You actively live in the society doing actual things. You eventually become involved in religious-political activism and human-rights issues. You gain a following. You take on close disciples and try to teach them your views, even though they often don't fully understand what you're saying.

Eventually the authorities you are renouncing find a way to have you publicly crucified. That is going to be a traumatic event, especially for your followers.

So now after you've died, rumors start to spring up that you were born of a virgin and sent by God as God's only begotten son, etc.

Some two-thousand years later people are arguing over these rumors and asking whether or not they might be true.

Suddenly evidence appears that you had actually existed historically! You really did lead a civil movement against the religious leaders of the day. You really did renounce the immoral teachings of their religious dogma. And they really did have you crucified.

Does it then automatically follow that all the superstitious rumors about you are true?

No it does not.

And the same is true for this man "Jesus". Even if some guy had actually lived and did some of the things that are claimed in the New Testament gospels does not in any way, suggest that every single superstitious rumor written about this man should be taken seriously.

Like I said before, they could find the cross that Jesus has been nailed to, they could find the spikes that were used, they could even find detailed historical record of this man being crucified and I STILL wouldn't buy into the New Testament rumors about him.

Proof that some guy was crucified for having spoken against the religious authority of the day is not proof that he was God. On the contrary, all it does is show why such outrageous rumors may have been sparked.

~~~~

Consider the following too:

His loyal followers would have been so outraged and hurt by his death than they would have certainly been emotionally torn to the point of supporting such rumors.

I can just see them now screaming at the Pharisees:

He was GOD!

He was GOD!

He was GOD!

Nope. He was just a man. But he probably was far more highly divine than the Pharisees to be sure.

Here's our disconnect - You deny any OT prophecy speaks of Jesus of Nazareth before the fact.

So do the Jews as well as the Muslim. So many "believers" in the Abrahamic picture of God reject the idea that Jesus had anything to do with the prophecies in the OT.

I'm certainly not alone in that view.

Moreover, did you not understand my previous objections along these lines?

The superstitious rumors about Jesus claim that God spoke to a large crowd from a cloud saying "This is my beloved son, hear him".

Why didn't the Jews hear God speaking from this cloud?

The superstitious rumors about Jesus also claim that a multitude of saints were jostled from their graves and went into Holy City of Jerusalem to show themselves to the people there.

Well, the people living in Jerusalem at that time were the Jews. Yet the Jews saw no zombie saints.

With all these outrageous claims being made in the New Testament superstitious rumors the Jews should have become the strongest Christians ever. But they didn't. On the contrary they flatly rebuke Christianity across the board.

On the matter of prophecy I actually agree with the Jews that Jesus could not possibly have been the promised messiah from the Old Testament.

I just go a bit further and also suggest that even the God of the Old Testament is nothing more than superstitious rumors as well.

In fact, having rejected the OT as being utter nonsense, I'm certainly not about to take seriously the notion that Jesus was the sacrificial demigod son of that God.

You believe Jesus studied Buddhism - some of my friends say He might have traveled to India, but this is completely without historical merit as well.

I disagree. Mahayana Buddhism was actually at it's peak at precisely that time in history. It's a prefect candidate for where Jesus obtained his philosophy.

Two things to consider:

1. Jesus wouldn't have had to actually travel to India. Buddhism is portable and was no doubt known to the ancient Jews in his day. So he could have studied under a Mahayana Buddhist right in Israel.

2. Even the Gospels basically have Jesus "silent" or "missing" from the time he was about 12 until he was about 30. That's more than enough time to walk to India and back from Israel. Give him a horse or donkey and it's no problem at all.

John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue

Well there you go!

The rumors of a "Christ" were already "hot-to-trot" and in the making.

You need to understand that the Jews were living in oppression under Roman occupation during these times. Their hopes for a messiah to be sent by God and be handed the Throne of King David to rightfully bring the Jews back to a state God-given sovereignty were extremely HIGH.

In fact, that's precisely what "The Christ" was prophesied to do.

Jesus never became the King of the Jews. On the contrary he was crucified on a pole. Any mortal man could have gotten himself crucified.

Jesus couldn't have been "The Christ" of prophecy.

Any Jew will tell you that.

It's not surprising that Jewish historians like Philo or anyone else failed to record the miracles which proved Jesus' Deity, even mention him for fear of upsetting the Jewish leaders.

That is totally irrelevant to me.

We're you paying attention to my previous arguments?

If Jesus had been going around the countryside healing all manner of sickness and raising people from the dead with large masses following him around witnessing these things no amount of political authority could have hushed the resulting historical reports of such things. Yet no independent historical reports exist.

I'm not talking about official historians. I'm talking about the masses. If the claims being made in the New Testament about Jesus held any truth, there would be tons of evidence of this around just from independent sources. Yet no such evidence exists.

Moreover, where were the Jews when all these miracles were supposedly taking place? If the Jews saw all these miracles being done right before their eyes why were they so quick to renounce these rumors?

Why did Greeks and Romans overlook it?

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:22, 23).

The Athenians called Paul a "babbler" (Acts 17:18). They probably ridiculed him, but didn't take much of the time to refute what he was saying; at least in writing.

It's a Hallmark of Christianity to call everyone "fools" who refuse to accept that their dogma is the "Official Word of God".

I think you need to realize also that back in those days cultures fought with each other over who's "God" is more powerful, or has more authority.

The very basis of the Abrahamic religions start out with a highly Jealous God. "Thou shalt not place any other Gods before me!"

They were already doing this to compete with religions of other cultures.

In Christianity this theme of religious superiority just culminates in Jesus name.

Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is the epitome of religious superiority. Either you believe in our God or be damned with you!

You need to realize that this competition to create religions to 'Trump" other religions was a very large mindset of religious authoritarians.

Here you have the ultimate religion.

We have "God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON". You either bow down and confess that He is LORD, or God himself will damn you.

It's the epitome of religious bigotry.

It's also the ultimate underhanded scam to renounce all other religions whilst pretending not to be "bashing" them.

In stead of putting down any specific religion all Christianity needs to say is, "If you have not recognized and accepted Jesus as the Christ, you're rejecting God and you are damned".

What better way to renounce the validity of all other spiritual faiths?

You don't even need to discuss them directly or attack them directly. All you need to do is stand behind the idea that rejection of Jesus as LORD is rejection of God. Never-mind what the other religion might even have to say. That's totally irrelevant.

You either worship our Jesus as the only true demigod or be damned with you as a heathen.

It's the epitome of religious bigotry. And it was ripe in that time and culture.

As a man-made religion it makes perfect sense. It even reeks of man's arrogance.

As a divine plan of some supposedly all-wise creator of ALL HUMANITY?

I personally don't think it's even worthy of consideration.

And like I say Jimvansage, I would even hold this to be true right to the face of any supposed "God" who might have created such a disgusting religion.

So my arguments go right to the divine.

~~~~

Consider this Jimvansage

I personally still have huge extreme problems right at the beginning of these fables with how God handed "creation" and the supposed "Fall from Grace" of Adam and Eve. I also have tons of problems with this God's supposed handling of many events all throughout the entire Old Testament.

Here you are focusing on "Jesus", when I'm already totally convinced of the utter ineptitude of the God that Jesus is supposedly the demigod son of.

I'm already convinced that the fables of the God of Abraham must necessarily be nothing more than man-made nonsense.

Therefore when considering a potential "historical Jesus" the Mahayana Buddhist interpretations makes the most sense without a doubt.

Even according to the Gospel rumors Jesus himself didn't agree with the immortal teachings of the Torah and instead Jesus taught moral values that were, by far, more in line with the moral principles of Mahayana Buddhism than anything written in the Torah.

According to the Gospel rumors Jesus said, "I and the father are one".

That's the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism. "Tat T'vam Asi" ("You are It')

According to the Gospel rumors in defense of charges of blapheme for having said that he and the father are one Jesus points to the Torah and says, "Is it not written in your law, I have said, ye are Gods?"

Exactly what I would expect a Mahayana Buddhist to say. "Tat T'vam Asi" ("You are It")

When I read the New Testament rumors about Jesus I clearly see where Jesus could have very easily been a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist.

In light of the fact, that I already find the Old Testament fables of "God" to be absurd, I'm not about to make an about face in the New Testament and start considering the Jesus might have been the demigod son of that fictitious God sent to be a sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of man.

Especially not when the idea that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE.

Even according to the Gospels Jesus didn't even agree with the immoral teachings of the Torah. How could he possibly have been the demigod son of that God? That makes absolutely NO SENSE at all, IMHO.

~~~~

I'm just telling you what makes sense to me, and what does not.

You, on the other hand are attempting to make out like I'm "ignoring" historical facts, or some such nonsense.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm considering history in its entirety including the history of Mahayana Buddhism (which I might add would be well worth learning about).

Once you truly understand what Mahayana Buddhism actually stood for you may come around to realizing how perfectly Jesus fits into that picture.

Whereas, trying to fit Jesus into the picture of the God of Abraham makes no sense. Even according to the Gospels Jesus himself didn't even agree with the teachings attributed to that God. He pushed them aside, and instead taught the more highly moral values of Mahayana Buddhism.

If Jesus wasn't a Mahayana Buddhist, then we must recognize and acknowledge that the Mahayana Buddhists were far ahead of God in that they had figured out good moral values BEFORE the Hebrew God finally came around to changing his evil ways and sending a demigod son to teach these new moral values.

The Mahayana Buddhists would have beaten the God of Abraham at his own games. They were light-years ahead of Jesus before Jesus was ever born.

[mitty]

The problem with thinking that the Gospels are evidence of anything is the fact that they were not written to be literal biographies of Jesus. They contain many mythic and allegorical elements. Jesus himself never claimed to be the only begotten son of God. This label was placed on him long after his death.

The "begotten son of God" was David (Psalm 2:7) not Jesus, even though David was a murdering adulterous polygamous bisexual.

[jimvansage]

It just depends on how you look at it - you admit that your interpretation and rejection are subjective.

"Sure. But I hold that if such a supposedly all-wise super-intelligent being actually exists, then he/she/it couldn't possibly be stupid enough to have created such an ignorant and demented scenario as having a demigod nailed to a pole to "pay" for the sins of mankind"

I could just as easily say (albeit subjectively) that "God knew before he created the universe or man that He Himself had to suffer and die because His greatest creation (man) would still be finite and He infinite" and talk about holiness and perfection and love and all that mushy stuff

The pet theory that Jesus studied Buddhism, the possibility, is still not evidence. No matter how similar the teachings, similarity does not necessitate identity.
My body is %70 water. A watermelon is %70 water.
You can't force a relationship based on that without evidence.