Was jesus christ a stream enterer, once returner, non returner or arahant?

[confusedsoso]

Was jesus christ a stream enterer, once returner, non returner or arahant?

[DNS]

Was jesus christ a stream enterer, once returner, non returner or arahant?

If we go by the reports in the New Testament about his life and teachings, then none of the above. He was opposed to Jewish orthodoxy and probably the rituals of Judaism (which was good), but still had belief in a Creator, and a permanent self.

He said that he was the "alpha and the omega" although it's doubtful he really said that because he didn't speak Greek. He spoke an older dialect of Hebrew known as Aramaic.

He could still have been a good person though and probably an ascetic of some sort, perhaps an Essene.

[SarathW]

The minimum requirement to become a Sotapanna is the elimination of self-view. Which Jesus did not have.
However, to qualify to become a Sotapanna there are a few more requirements.
_ Associating good friends. ( means another Sotapanna etc)
_ Listen to Dhamma (What Buddha taught)
_ Yonisomanasikara
_ Follow the Noble Eightfold Path

Jesus does not qualify for any of the above. However, as David said he must have been an extremely kind person who practice Brahama Vihara. Perhaps he will qualify as a god, Deva or Brahama.

[Ontheway]

Jesus Christ is just a Puthujjana with certain levels of spiritual powers.

[Pondera]

Jesus Christ is just a Puthujjana with certain levels of spiritual powers.

What certain levels? What was he capable of? As a puthujjana, of course …

[TRobinson465]

If you are talking about the theory that Jesus learned Buddhism during his missing years, attained some abhinna powers and then came back to Judea to found Christianity based on mixture of Buddhism and Judaism while performing miracles using his abhinna powers. I would say he was probably not an ariya at all or he wouldnt have made christianity. I think its possible (following that theory) that he was a stream enterer or maybe a non-returner, but more likely if he did learn Buddhism during the missing years that he just attained some level of abhinna rather than an actual level of enlightenment (even devadatta attained some abhinna powers, despite obviously not achieving any of the four stages of enlightenment), and then just used those powers to perform his miracles.

[confusedlayman]

Jesus Christ is just a Puthujjana with certain levels of spiritual powers.

What certain levels? What was he capable of? As a puthujjana, of course …

He said love thy neibour...

[dharmacorps]

It isn't possible without right view.

[SarathW]

If you are talking about the theory that Jesus learned Buddhism during his missing years, attained some abhinna powers and then came back to Judea to found Christianity based on mixture of Buddhism and Judaism while performing miracles using his abhinna powers. I would say he was probably not an ariya at all or he wouldnt have made christianity. I think its possible (following that theory) that he was a stream enterer or maybe a non-returner, but more likely if he did learn Buddhism during the missing years that he just attained some level of abhinna rather than an actual level of enlightenment (even devadatta attained some abhinna powers, despite obviously not achieving any of the four stages of enlightenment), and then just used those powers to perform his miracles.

It is possible he learned Hinduism not Buddhism.

[TRobinson465]

If you are talking about the theory that Jesus learned Buddhism during his missing years, attained some abhinna powers and then came back to Judea to found Christianity based on mixture of Buddhism and Judaism while performing miracles using his abhinna powers. I would say he was probably not an ariya at all or he wouldnt have made christianity. I think its possible (following that theory) that he was a stream enterer or maybe a non-returner, but more likely if he did learn Buddhism during the missing years that he just attained some level of abhinna rather than an actual level of enlightenment (even devadatta attained some abhinna powers, despite obviously not achieving any of the four stages of enlightenment), and then just used those powers to perform his miracles.

It is possible he learned Hinduism not Buddhism.

That is possible as well. But the prevailing theory was that he was visited a Buddhist monastery during his lost years.

[confusedsoso]

He said love thy neibour...

When dying on the cross he also said forgive them for they know not what they do.........

[Maarten]

Ajahn Punnadhammo had an interesting theory of Jesus being a Bodhisattva. I don't know all that much about him but from what I know he does seem to exhibit such extreme behavior. It certainly explains why he would have wrong views. I wonder if he was one, what paramis he was working on?

[Shlaymun]

Was jesus christ a stream enterer, once returner, non returner or arahant?

If we go by the reports in the New Testament about his life and teachings, then none of the above. He was opposed to Jewish orthodoxy and probably the rituals of Judaism (which was good), but still had belief in a Creator, and a permanent self.

He said that he was the "alpha and the omega" although it's doubtful he really said that because he didn't speak Greek. He spoke an older dialect of Hebrew known as Aramaic.

He could still have been a good person though and probably an ascetic of some sort, perhaps an Essene.

I think it should be clarified that Aramaic isn't an older dialect of Hebrew – it is a separate (but related) language, both being Semitic languages diverging from the parent language Northwest Semitic. Aramaic was spoken by the more northern Aramaeans, and Hebrew by the more southern Israelites. Hebrew was already mostly ceased to be a spoken language by the first century AD, and had largely become replaced by Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew, although Hebrew continued to be used in liturgy). Aramaic had become the lingua franca throughout much of the Middle East until it itself was then largely displaced by Arabic. Modern varieties of Aramaic continue to be spoken in parts of the Middle East though.

Whether or not Jesus spoke Greek is debatable, but nonetheless, he could have said "I am the Alaph and the Taw", and when translated into Greek, the authors simply substituted the first and last letters of the Aramaic/Hebrew alphabet for the Greek ones, for the same intended meaning (especially if these were aimed at a Greek audience who might not be familiar with the Aramaic/Hebrew alphabet). Indeed, this is what the Aramaic (Syriac) versions of this verse use (Aleph-Taw). Probably also worth clarifying Jesus was opposed to specifically Pharisaic interpretations of the Jewish law, but it's unclear to what extent, as the Gospels differ on this point. (I assume this being considered "good" is from a Buddhist perspective, in that it entails less attachment to rituals, etc.?)

[DNS]

I think it should be clarified that Aramaic isn't an older dialect of Hebrew – it is a separate (but related) language, both being Semitic languages diverging from the parent language Northwest Semitic.

Thanks, you are correct; I make that mistake often, calling it a dialect, because they are so similar! One who speaks, understands Hebrew can easily pick up Aramaic and vice versa. Some of the letter characters and most of the words are identical.

Whether or not Jesus spoke Greek is debatable, but nonetheless, he could have said "I am the Alaph and the Taw", and when translated into Greek, the authors simply substituted the first and last letters of the Aramaic/Hebrew alphabet for the Greek ones, for the same intended meaning (especially if these were aimed at a Greek audience who might not be familiar with the Aramaic/Hebrew alphabet).

But the Hebrews / Israelis did not have that saying, as far as I know. Someone could say "I am the Aleph and the Tav" (Hebrew), but it wouldn't make any sense. Just as in English, no one says "I am the A and the Z"; one could say that, but it wouldn't make any sense, colloquially.

Probably also worth clarifying Jesus was opposed to specifically Pharisaic interpretations of the Jewish law, but it's unclear to what extent, as the Gospels differ on this point. (I assume this being considered "good" is from a Buddhist perspective, in that it entails less attachment to rituals, etc.?)

Yes

[Coëmgenu]

But the Hebrews / Israelis did not have that saying, as far as I know. Someone could say "I am the Aleph and the Tav" (Hebrew), but it wouldn't make any sense.

There is a belief, however, that in creating the world, it was through the mystigogical operation of the first-created Hebrew alphabet, no? "Bereshit bara elohim et ha-shamayyim ve'et ha-aretz." The "et" is aleph-tav. The Hebrew alphabet itself is not the only thing that will occupy this place. In historical Metatron mysticisms, they go so far as to put two thrones in heaven. It's no coincidence, IMO, that later Christians will put Jesus on an identical throne next to "the Father." Philo of Alexandria gives testimony to Jewish belief in a "logos" or "word" of God which is like a sort of special "first creation" -- a word embodied in a sacred alphabet, one wonders? Random musings.

It's a pity conversations like this don't happen on DharmaPaths. It seems like it just doesn't have the same draw as a more specialized forum like DhammaWheel. Clearly there is an interest in such dialogue, however.