Did Christ come to India to study Buddhism, Vedas?

[Cittasanto]

hi Kim,
you didn't take into account the Greeks who did have contact with the Romans, who were in contact with the indians and it is believed by some that a Buddhist monastic group existed in Alexandria (?) and words such as Therapy are thought by some to of originated from this group (Christopher Titmus has written an article on this). The Greeks did have contact with Egypt as well which is one place it is thought that jesus went, then there is also the evidence that St Thomas the apostle (Gospel of Thomas fame) is believed to of, and evidence exists for this, went to India where a church group existed for about 1500 years before it was brought into the roman churches fold.

Although I do not believe that jesus went to india and the historical accuracy of the bible is unlikely the contact between the cultures and the small amount of common ground maybe coincidental but may not be for a variety of reasons.

Those who have said the Buddha or Jesus didn't exist I would like to see them prove Shakespeare did exist! there is very little evidence that Shakespeare as an actual
person did exist and some have put forward that he was a pseudonym of a group of or one writer(s) who weren't getting their plays produced so made him up spread rumours about how good his plays were etc

[notself]

Your quote is not recognized as authentic and is most likely a much later addition.

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for The Antiquities of the Jews are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century.[3] The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves — books 1–10 and books 11–20. But other ad hoc copies of this passage also exist.

The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[Kare]

Those who have said the Buddha or Jesus didn't exist I would like to see them prove Shakespeare did exist!

Sorry to say so, but this is a totally confused way of arguing. If you wish to examine the question of the existence of Jesus, examine the question of the existence of Jesus, not the Buddha or Shakespeare.

If you want to find out if Joe is at home or not, do you then go to the home of Jack or Mary to see if they are at home?

[Fede]

Shakespeare did exist.
There are official documents (birth certificates, local church records, portraits,) to corroborate his existence.

My mother was a freelance State registered Guild of Guides tourist guide. She worked for 21 years. She still has her badge, and even now, at 77 is qualified to act as a Guide for tourists. She is only one of 3 guides in the UK to hold this privilege (after retirement, you're usually requested to hand in your badge, which acts as a free pass to famous monuments and institutions where normally, an entrance fee would apply).
She became so proficient at her job, that she qualified as an examiner for new guides in both English and Italian (her mother tongue).
She knows that Shakespeare existed, so I'm confident in her knowledge.

next......?

[tiltbillings]

next......?

Robin Hood?

[Fede]

Was actually Robert of Loxley, and probably never came from Nottingham itself, but from a neighbouring hamlet.....
oh....sorry.....
I see what you're doing there......

[catmoon]

Your quote is not recognized as authentic and is most likely a much later addition.

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for The Antiquities of the Jews are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century.[3] The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves — books 1–10 and books 11–20. But other ad hoc copies of this passage also exist.

The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Please note that to question authenticity is a very different thing from denying it. In fact the number of scholars who outright deny the authenticity of the entire passage is a small minority, so contrary to your statement, it IS recognized as authentic, at least in part, by the large majority or writers. Bear in mind that the same standards of authenticity that are used on Jesus could well be applied to the authenticity of Buddha!

At least in the case of Josephus, we know who the author was and when he lived, and who he was working for and how he got the job.

Then add in the fact that this is not the only reference to Jesus in Josephus, and that Josephus was hardly the only independent writer to mention Jesus, and you have an insurmountable wave of evidence. There was a Jesus, he was a teacher, and he was put to death by the Romans. Probably on a charge of sedition.

[catmoon]

What next, are gonna start denying the existence of Mohammed? Or Ghandi? Maybe John F. Kennedy wasn't a real guy, maybe he was a fiction perpetrated by the government using a series of actors to portay the part....

[Fede]

Now you're just being obtuse and using puerile argument.

You merely succeed in making yourself sound ridiculous.

resorting to such facile statements adds no weight to your discussion.


IMO.

[catmoon]

Now you're just being obtuse and using puerile argument.

You merely succeed in making yourself sound ridiculous.

resorting to such facile statements adds no weight to your discussion.


IMO.

Calling people names isn't doing much for your argument either. Please rest assured that there are perfectly rational people in the world who find questioning the historicity of Jesus right up there with denying that any Jews were killed in WWII or denying that NASA ever went to the moon. It is my earnestly held opinion that all these arguments are perfectly ridiculous, as I believe I have demonstrated.

How would you like it if Christians were running around denying the existence of Buddha? Would you think them skilful?

[Fede]

Calling people names isn't doing much for your argument either.

I didn't call you names. I referred to what you were saying as puerile and facetious. We all get heavy doses of that sometimes, but I emphasise - how does it actually help the discussion to resort to such argument?

Please rest assured that there are perfectly rational people in the world who find questioning the historicity of Jesus right up there with denying that any Jews were killed in WWII

These are provable.

or denying that NASA ever went to the moon

This is highly disputable.
I for one, don't believe they did, and there's plenty of evidence they didn't and very little in return that they did.
But this is taking it off-topic....

.

It is my earnestly held opinion that all these arguments are perfectly ridiculous, as I believe I have demonstrated.

No, obviously you haven't sufficiently, otherwise the discussion wouldn't still be on-going.

How would you like it if Christians were running around denying the existence of Buddha? Would you think them skilful?

It little matters to me whether he did or didn't. Just as it little matters to me whether Jesus existed, or whether God exists.
It's not something that is conducive to my practice to go into, in great depth.
What's important is how I follow the teachings of the Dhamma.

[catmoon]

How would you like it if Christians were running around denying the existence of Buddha? Would you think them skilful?

It little matters to me whether he did or didn't. Just as it little matters to me whether Jesus existed, or whether God exists.
It's not something that is conducive to my practice to go into, in great depth.
What's important is how I follow the teachings of the Dhamma.

That's nice. How about answering the question though?

Also, do you you think the Dhamma teaches tolerance?
Maybe even brotherhood and goodwill between faiths?

[Laurens]

Whether or not Jesus exsisted, samasara still goes on...

[catmoon]

Whether or not Jesus exsisted, samasara still goes on...

I do believe I detect a note of humour in this...

[Fede]

How would you like it if Christians were running around denying the existence of Buddha? Would you think them skilful?

It little matters to me whether he did or didn't. Just as it little matters to me whether Jesus existed, or whether God exists.
It's not something that is conducive to my practice to go into, in great depth.
What's important is how I follow the teachings of the Dhamma.

That's nice. How about answering the question though?

I've been confronted by Christians saying this to me, and I believe I did answer the question.
I don't really care, it doesn't bother me.

Also, do you you think the Dhamma teaches tolerance?

No, the Dhamma teaches acceptance. There's a difference.

Maybe even brotherhood and goodwill between faiths?

No.
I go for brotherhood and goodwill between people, not faiths. The Kalama Sutta puts paid to any acceptance I might develop for other faiths.
They simply don't work for me, so I discard them.

[Cittasanto]

Those who have said the Buddha or Jesus didn't exist I would like to see them prove Shakespeare did exist!

Sorry to say so, but this is a totally confused way of arguing. If you wish to examine the question of the existence of Jesus, examine the question of the existence of Jesus, not the Buddha or Shakespeare.

If you want to find out if Joe is at home or not, do you then go to the home of Jack or Mary to see if they are at home?

Hi Kere,
I wasn't suggesting that proving one existed proved the other/s existence or to prove one didn't exist proved the others didn't. just that evidence for existance or not isn't a guarantee that they did or didn't exist, and that if it could happen to someone closer to our time it can most certainly happen to someone further back.

[Cittasanto]

Was actually Robert of Loxley, and probably never came from Nottingham itself, but from a neighbouring hamlet.....
oh....sorry.....
I see what you're doing there......

I was going to say that!

[pink_trike]

edit note:
Responding to Pink Trike, here.....

In whichever case, most of what we're discussing is therefore hypothesis, speculation and total guess-work (coupled with, I dare say, the odd fragment of wishful thinking....)
Suffice to say we should gaze at the moon, and not the finger.

Hi Fede,

Agreed that it is the moon that matters, but there are different methods for getting a clear sight of the moon:

1. Ignore or deny the finger, peering around it for a skewed view of the moon
2. Look spang at the finger until it dissolves, revealing the moon.

I prefer the latter. The more directly we look at the finger, the less we can find it. This method lessens the habitual tendency for the obscuring finger to block the view.

[BubbaBuddhist]

Whenever this topic comes up, it always seems to reach a point where people begin giving each other the finger and then mooning each other.

J

[BlackBird]

Whenever this topic comes up, it always seems to reach a point where people begin giving each other the finger and then mooning each other.

J

Should we give it a nama

How about "Conspiracy effect"?