- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
. I’m going to comment on Swimordie’s post later, but first I just wanted to give a quick analysis of Hawkgrrrl’s comparisons. I am of the opinion that they are not as similar as we are making them out to be. Here’s why: Quote:Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.
– Buddha
Matthew 6: 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.
A similar concept, but within completely different contexts. Jesus is teaching people to rely on God instead of worrying – the verse directly before this one reads: “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Buddha had no such concept of God, or trusting God for one’s needs.
Quote:Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Matt 13: 9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Two completely different concepts: Buddha is teaching skepticism. Jesus is encouraging people to interpret the meaning behind his parables. (This verse takes place right after the Parable of the Sower and before he gave the meaning of the parable).
Quote:Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.
Buddha
Matt 23: 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant
Again, completely different concepts. Buddha is preaching against envy, Jesus is teaching people to serve their fellowman.
Quote:Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.
Buddha
3 Ne 17:8 I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you
.
In Buddha’s way of thinking we cause and cure our own diseases through our frame of mind. In Jesus’ way of thinking we go to God for healing. Notice who’s doing the healing in each passage. “Your faith is sufficient that
Ishould heal you.” Quote:Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.
Buddha
Matt 18: 27 – 33 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him aan hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
Both good teachings of caring for others. But two different concepts: Buddha is talking about the Buddhist concept of Dukkha (Suffering). Jesus is teaching more specifically about forgiveness of sins, and it is really an analogy for the radical grace which he bestows in his personal forgiveness of man. Buddha did not make any effort to forgive sins – he had no concept of that.
Quote:He is able who thinks he is able.
Buddha
Matt 21: 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Both messages of empowerment. However, in Jesus’ case it is not a matter of the individual’s inner power, but God’s. The following verse says, “if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” Again Jesus is requiring his servants to go to God with their requests, not to seek the solutions through their inner potential, as Buddha taught.
Quote:He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.
Buddha
D&C 38:27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.
Both leave people with the same goal of seeing others as your brother, but each had a different understanding of what this meant. Buddha literally believed we were all of one substance and that our individuality was an illusion that we had to break free from. Jesus seemed to teach that we were individuals by nature, but that we were to treat each other as if we were one, and metaphorically become one (as is represented in the Church being the body of Christ, etc.).
Quote:He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes.
Buddha
Mosiah 18:9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort
2 Cor 7:13 Therefore we were comforted in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all.
Mark 3: 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
I actually do not understand the comparison that is being made. Perhaps someone could clarify? It seems to me that Buddha is saying the more people you love, the more problems you will have. The Jesus verses seem to be saying the opposite.
Quote:Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.
Buddha
3 Ne 12: 22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Both discourage anger, yes. But Jesus throws in the concept of an end-of-the-world judgment in which someone’s anger will be punished. Buddha had no such concept.
Quote:However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?
Buddha
Matt 7: 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 7: 24-27 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
These do sound similar, but it’s not uncanny. They’re both teachers who want their students to apply what they’ve learned! My grade 5 teacher was the same way – that doesn’t mean she was a Buddhist, lol.
Quote:In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha
James 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
2 Cor 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults.
3 Ne 32: 2 2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.
Both are against anger, but for different reasons. Buddha speaks against anger because it gets in the way of truth. The Jesus verses speak against anger because it opens people up to evil influences – more of a matter of righteousness.
Quote:It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
Buddha
Matt 16: 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
2 Tim 1: 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
I don’t see the comparison. Perhaps someone could clarify this one as well?
Quote:No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.
Buddha
Philip 2: 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
“No one saves us”? Surely you can see how that is the opposite of Jesus’ message. The whole purpose of Jesus’ life was to “save us”. We have to “walk the path” and “work out our salvation”, but it’s clear that Jesus repeatedly refers to himself as the exclusive source of salvation.
swimordie wrote:I can’t help but wonder why not? Why couldn’t the early (original) writers of the NT have used eastern mythology? They didn’t seem to care about paralleling OT mythology, greek mythology, etc.
The NT writers paralleled OT mythology because they believed in the same deity, and in the same cosmology. The Jesus movement was basically a Jewish Messianic movement based in the teachings of Judaism. NT writers (like Paul) paralleled greek mythology only when he was using it as a teaching point. Paul did not believe in greek mythology (their gods, their cosmology, etc.), but he used some themes that were familiar to them in order to teach Christian doctrine. Paul says, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (1 Corinthians 9:20-21).
swimordie wrote:It just seems way too coincidental, the parallels. And, many of these buddhist philosophies pre-dated Christ by hundreds of years. Those three wise men came from somewhere. Is it irreverent or blasphemous to just say it: Jesus’ teachings were heavily influenced by eastern philosophy. At least, what we have in the NT.
First, I don’t think the parallels are that convincing (see my analysis in my previous post above).
Second, the wise men – Your comment correlates the wise men’s visit to eastern influence on Jesus. Let’s be clear – they didn’t stay long enough to have any influence on Jesus. Even if they were Buddhists (which I don’t think they were), they only stayed to give gifts, worship Jesus, and leave.
I don’t think it’s irreverent or blasphemous – it’s a good idea to explore – but I don’t think it has any real basis. It’s a pet theory for many, especially in the New Age movement and Buddhism, to claim Jesus for their belief system. But if you spend some time trying to understand Jesus’ overall message, it’s fundamentally different from Buddhism. I’ve talked about the reasons before, but here’s a quick summary:
-Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, claimed to forgive sins, claimed that he would one day judge the world, and claimed that he was the exclusive “way”.
-IN CONTRAST: Buddha had no monotheistic concept of God, had no concept of “sin” (much less claimed the ability to forgive them. The only thing close would be bad karma, which could not be ‘forgiven’ but worked off through many lifetimes of goodness), had no concept of a final judgement or even of end of the world, and taught that there are multiple “ways”.
Morzen wrote:Jump in some more. I have a theory about this. It has to do with going back to the very beginning of humankind. Who or what started it if indeed there was a “singularity” event of humankind (the “Adam and Eve” symbology). And if there was a “who” or “what,” it is conceivable that this “god(s)” also dispensed truths that over time became not only crystallized (and corrupted) in subsequent dispersions or diaspora (the Tower of Babel symbology) of various emerging cultures, beliefs and their systems, and races.
Definitely an interesting theory, however, I would argue that the two worldviews of Buddhism and Christianity simply do not appear to have any kind of common origin. Their respective doctrines are mutually exclusive and opposing.
MapleLeaf wrote:Mormonism does present an interesting mix between the two philosophies. However, I think if Mormonism is to remain true to the framework of Jesus’ teachings, it cannot claim too close a kinship to Buddhism, because much of Buddhism is really at odds with Jesus’ message and mission. Buddhism places great precendent upon self-propulsion up the ladder (no god necessary),
whereas Jesus’ main goal was to get people to rely on him and go to him as God and the exclusive source of salvation.I understand this is what is believed from the accepted NT teachings, but many gnostic gospel scholars believe this was not Jesus’ actual message, but one that was altered to create the need for a “church” back then. Some, Elaine Pagels for one, believe his teachings were in fact quite Buddhist in nature.
To add to what Rix said, I don’t think Jesus was connected at all to Buddism – unless you accept his pre-mortal status as Jehovah, in which case he very well might have inspired Buddhism in speaking to someone “in his own language, according to his understanding”. 
I also want to note that it’s one thing to say that the Bible and early Christian leaders interpreted the words of Jesus a particular way, but it’s another altogether to say that Jesus actually said what is attributed to him or that he meant XYZ when he said it. We really have NO idea what words he actually said or what he actually meant – and that transmission issue is part of the “as far as it is translated correctly” disclaimer that gets over-looked regularly.
Thanks, Ray, you beat me to it. I was not insinuating that any of those buddhist ideas are Jesus Christ’s. Rather, that those buddhist philosophies seem to have great influence on those who wrote the NT. And, NT writers (not Paul) of the four gospels gave Jesus many known mythological attributes like virgin birth, star in the east, wise men bringing gifts, feeding the multitudes, 3 temptations, 40 days of fasting, etc, etc. All of these concepts pre-date Christ. So, obviously the gospel writers were influenced by external mythologies and several of these happen to parallel some buddhist mythology while not paralleling OT, greek, roman mythology.
And, by adopting concepts of buddhist mythology or philosophy, the gospel writers would certainly put their own spin on it, take what they feel is useful or powerful and adapt it to their own inspired ideas. I’m sure that many of the philosophies of any religious code or theology or whatever you want to call it, will have a great many parallels. Humans are not as unique as they like to think they are. But, it seems likely, to me, that the gospel writers were influenced by a great many philosophical and mythological constructs, drawing heavily on buddhism, for example.
Old-Timer wrote:
I also want to note that it’s one thing to say that the Bible and early Christian leaders interpreted the words of Jesus a particular way, but it’s another altogether to say that Jesus actually said what is attributed to him or that he meant XYZ when he said it. We really have NO idea what words he actually said or what he actually meant – and that transmission issue is part of the “as far as it is translated correctly” disclaimer that gets over-looked regularly.Coming out of the closet a little bit – I don’t share the same mistrust of the New Testament that a lot of TBM’s have. Scholars believe that the gospels were all written under the guidance of direct eye witnesses or by eye witnesses themselves, and all within the first century AD. The gnostic gospels have no such credentials and were written over a century after Jesus.
How else can we know what Jesus said or meant if not through direct eye witness and the understanding of the first century Church? Anything beyond that is subject to corruption and human invention.
swimordie wrote:
I was not insinuating that any of those buddhist ideas are Jesus Christ’s. Rather, that those buddhist philosophies seem to have great influence on those who wrote the NT. And, NT writers (not Paul) of the four gospels gave Jesus many known mythological attributes like virgin birth, star in the east, wise men bringing gifts, feeding the multitudes, 3 temptations, 40 days of fasting, etc, etc. All of these concepts pre-date Christ. So, obviously the gospel writers were influenced by external mythologies and several of these happen to parallel some buddhist mythology while not paralleling OT, greek, roman mythology.I hope I don’t seem stubbourn, but I gotta disagree!
I think as humans we try to find patterns in our environment, even when they do not exist. It’s like throwing a hundred darts randomly at a barn wall, circling the spot where most darts are concentrated, then saying that you aimed for that circle. In hindsight, some of the darts landed in a similar area, but it clearly wasn’t intended, nor is there any real correlation. Same goes for the remote religious similarities.
swimordie wrote:And, by adopting concepts of buddhist mythology or philosophy, the gospel writers would certainly put their own spin on it, take what they feel is useful or powerful and adapt it to their own inspired ideas. I’m sure that many of the philosophies of any religious code or theology or whatever you want to call it, will have a great many parallels. Humans are not as unique as they like to think they are. But, it seems likely, to me, that the gospel writers were influenced by a great many philosophical and mythological constructs, drawing heavily on buddhism, for example.
In the sense that we all have the “human experience” in common, there are going to be similarities. But I gotta be adament on the point that these remote similarities do not denote common religious origins or religious influence upon each other.
MapleLeaf wrote:The idea that the Jesus story includes recycled elements from paganism is something that the New Age Movement has been pushing for a while now, and from what I can tell, it doesn’t appear to have any real basis. Perhaps you could give me some specific pagan examples of those Christian elements (virgin birth, etc.)?
Wow, my source reading results have been very different than yours, ML…not to say “mine” are correct
😆 all seem to concur in a few “virgin births” pre-Jesus (Dionysus for one…). Here’s one statement: “Author William Harwood has written that Jesus’ “equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now known as Matthew.” From:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm Now I’ll be the first to admit I’m no Pagan expert…but it does interest me. I quite enjoyed the book “The Jesus Mysteries” which devotes much work into the comparisons you speak of. Maybe it is all “New Age Movement,” but in my mind it’s either truly historical or not. It certainly doesn’t seem any more agenda-pushing than the Christian movement.
But I could be wrong, and would love to be led to more accurate sources.
Thanks!
. Quote:Scholars believe that the gospels were all written under the guidance of direct eye witnesses or by eye witnesses themselves, and all within the first century AD. [implying that we can trust the gospels to be pretty much accurate accounts]
Let’s just agree that this is not indisputable.
Rix wrote:
Maybe it is all “New Age Movement,” but in my mind it’s either truly historical or not. It certainly doesn’t seem any more agenda-pushing than the Christian movement.Yes, I agree that “it’s either truly historical or it’s not”. I wasn’t suggesting that just because the New Age Movement pushes for it that it automatically makes it false. Just pointing out that it’s an idea that largely originates from the New Age.
Rix wrote:Wow, my source reading results have been very different than yours, ML…not to say “mine” are correct
😆 all seem to concur in a few “virgin births” pre-Jesus (Dionysus for one…). Here’s one statement: “Author William Harwood has written that Jesus’ “equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now knownas Matthew.” From:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm Dionysus did not have a virgin-birth in any account I have read. He is said to have been conceived by Zeus and a mortal woman named Semele – with some complication to the story in that Semele dies before giving birth, so Zeus has to birth the child himself by sewing the fetus into his thigh. It seems a bit different from Matthew’s account of Jesus, lol. The main point being that neither Semele nor Zeus (who I guess was eventually the one who birthed him…) were virgins.
Another thing to note is that there are several versions of many pagan stories. We have to note when the story originated and whether or not it came before Christianity. The version where Semele dies is found in “Metamorphoses” by Ovid in about 8 AD. It is Pre-Christian, and it is not surprising that it has no Christian elements. If you see a pagan story that appears to have Christian elements, chances are the version of the story is Post-Christian. That has been my experience so far.
Rix wrote:But I could be wrong, and would love to be led to more accurate sources.
I hope that “Metamorphoses” is a good source for that one. I was directed to it through a web search on Dionysus.
I’m fairly confident that there isn’t convincing pre-Christian evidence to suggest that the Jesus story was ripped off of pagan ones. If you have any other examples though, I’d love to hear them!
MapleLeaf wrote:Another thing to note is that there are several versions of many pagan stories.
Yes, I’m sure, as there are MANY versions of the Jesus story too. Bart Ehrlman (NT scholar) has written volumes of books about this…I’ve read only two of his…quite meticulous and, IMO, boring! But it helped me get past the idea that the current NT is unchallengable, and even close to historical, as he illuminates the agenda of the Constantinians in establishing a consistent mythology for the people of the time. He talks much about how the Pagans were more accepting of “Christianity” if their God-man had a similar “story” to what they had been accustomed to believing. Joseph Campbell (one of my favorite religious historians) spent most of his writing career comparing the similarities between the religious mythologies and goes into detail about the many virgin births, death/resurrections, relationships to astrology, etc.
Anyway, yes, I’m sure they are “New Age,” since the comparisons are coming together in our modern age of historical evidence. I’m serious about really being interested in good sources that refute all this…sources that don’t have a Judeo-Christian agenda.
Thanks for the discussion!
Rix wrote:
Yes, I’m sure, as there are MANY versions of the Jesus story too. Bart Ehrlman (NT scholar) has written volumes of books about this…I’ve read only two of his…quite meticulous and, IMO, boring! But it helped me get past the idea that the current NT is unchallengable, and even close to historical, as he illuminates the agenda of the Constantinians in establishing a consistent mythology for the people of the time. He talks much about how the Pagans were more accepting of “Christianity” if their God-man had a similar “story” to what they had been accustomed to believing. Joseph Campbell (one of my favorite religious historians) spent most of his writing career comparing the similarities between the religious mythologies and goes into detail about the many virgin births, death/resurrections, relationships to astrology, etc.I agree that Constantine influenced Christianity quite a bit – for example, he set Christian holidays in accordance with Pagan ones (December 25th was previously Saturnalia, not Christmas). But the crucial point to note is that Constantine made changes in the
300s AD, while we can date the gospels back to 100-150 AD. We can date the Pauline Epistles back to the 50s AD! So we know a Christian church was well established in that time without the influence of the Roman Empire. The Jesus story was thus already in circulation looooongbefore Constantine got his hands on it. Rix wrote:
Anyway, yes, I’m sure they are “New Age,” since the comparisons are coming together in our modern age of historical evidence. I’m serious about really being interested in good sources that refute all this…sources that don’t have a Judeo-Christian agenda.I don’t have a particular scholar to refer you to at this point. But I think we can refute many of the pagan-christian connections through pagan sources (or lack thereof). For example, we can take the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth was copied from Dionysus’, look at pre-Christian pagan sources to see what pagans believed about Dionysus, and conclude that Dionysus did not have a virgin birth. The connection simply isn’t there. (No Judeo-Christian bias necessary, don’t worry!)
I’ll try to see if there is a good scholar that talks about this stuff. In the mean time, let me know if there’s a pagan-christian connection that you’re particularly convinced of!
The core Biblical assertion is that Jesus was the son of God, the Father, and Mary – essentially, that he was the child of a god and a mortal. “Virginity” issues aside, how is that any different at its core than Dionysus being conceived by Zeus (a god) and Semele (a mortal)? It seems to me that the issue of Mary’s virginity PALES in comparison to the issue of god/mortal conception. MapleLeaf wrote:I agree that Constantine influenced Christianity quite a bit – for example, he set Christian holidays in accordance with Pagan ones (December 25th was previously Saturnalia, not Christmas). But the crucial point to note is that Constantine made changes in the
300s AD, while we can date the gospels back to 100-150 AD. We can date the Pauline Epistles back to the 50s AD! So we know a Christian churchwas well established in that time without the influence of the Roman Empire. The Jesus story was thus already in circulation looooongbefore Constantine got his hands on it. You might like Ehrlman’s work in this area. He chronicles many Christian “churches” in the first few centuries after Jesus’ life. But there definitely was not “one Christian church.” There was the range from Gnostic Christians to Pauline Christians. And yes, quite a few Pagans.
Fast forward to Constantine…he made a political decision to establish one church, and called many scholars together to debate which gospels, letters, and books would be acceptable, and which ones heretical. There was heated debate, and in the end, the books that favored Pauline Christianity, required a church for absolution and guidance were chosen. The others were labeled heretical and commanded to be destroyed. There was a fusion of Pagan traditions and rituals…Ehrlman talks of how the culture at the time really liked their holidays, so they were incorporated into the Christian story. Of course this was the beginning of the crusades where those that would not conform were imprisoned and murdered. “Heretical” books that were found were burned.
The result of all this was a near extinction of contrasting stories of Jesus…and almost all other records besides the sanctioned ones. It’s really only in the last century that we are beginning to understand what really happened — and I’m sure there is much more we don’t know.
Anyway, it’s a fascinating (to me) study of history…to see how the power-hungry Constantine used religion to control the masses; and what we have today is “his” work that many revere as the absolute word of “God.”
Go figure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.