Clown Shoes Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Christ did not get born from virgin. His mother cheated and had illegal sexual affair and made up the story of holy ghost to get out of it. He did not walk over water, that was made up by drunken idiots talking about him. His father was a carpenter, not some god in heaven, that was to cover up the affair. He did not turn water into wine, those days everything that rotted turned into wine. He did not cure the blind, that is the Buddhist way of saying an unconscious unaware person has come to awareness again. That is about the seeing of the inner consciousness, not the physical eyes. Resurrecting the dead is also pointing at the Buddhist background as he gets people who live boringly dull like zombies to start living live fully again like they have never had before. It does not refer to corpses, many people live dull like they are dead. Religion is the opium of the people, (karl marx) All conjecture! None of it has any historical evidence. What is certain is that there was a MAN called Jesus, he was followed by people and went to the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The 3 wise men coming from the east are said to be Buddhist monks. So a newborn baby, who may or may not have existed, was visited by 3 people who may or may not have been Buddhists (not off to a good start with the evidence) The grave in Kashmir that they say is Jesus, with his being the only grave that's East to west and the carved footprints on the grave that seem to have the scars from crucifixion. ...and a grave in Kashmir, officially the grave of a Muslim preacher named Youza Asaph, is believed by some to actually belong to Jesus Christ. The reasons for this seem to be the plot of the fictional film "The Da Vinci code" and a terrible carving of some big, square feet with an exaggerated ridge on each one, which some have (oddly) interpretted to be scars from the crucifiction (not getting any better, this) The missing years from 12 to 29 in the Bible. A partial absence of biography, is that a sure sign that he was Buddhist? (no, not in the slightest) The similarities between what he taught and what the Buddhist religion is about, things like loving ones neighbor and turning the other cheek and all that which was totally different from the sort of things happening in the old testament. Aesop's fables also contain many similarities, does that make Aesop Buddhist? (no) They reckon also that he did not die on the cross which let way to the belief of resurrection and he was only on the cross 6 hours where they sedated him where it says in the bible that they dabbed his lips and he died. I can believe that, it's much more plausible than the resurrection. What does it have to do with Buddhism though? There's loads more stuff and it may be all rubarb, but its interesting to watch. Thanks for all the above, but you've convinced me to give it a miss ---------- Post added 31-03-2014 at 10:13 ---------- I think "God" just mean "inner peace" in modern day terms. I think you may find there is an overwhelming number of people who disagree with you on that. Most would think that "God" still means a powerful, supernatural being. ---------- Post added 31-03-2014 at 10:13 ---------- What is certain is that there was a MAN called Jesus, he was followed by people and went to the cross. That's certain, is it? What is your source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 So a newborn baby, who may or may not have existed, was visited by 3 people who may or may not have been Buddhists (not off to a good start with the evidence) ...and a grave in Kashmir, officially the grave of a Muslim preacher named Youza Asaph, is believed by some to actually belong to Jesus Christ. The reasons for this seem to be the plot of the fictional film "The Da Vinci code" and a terrible carving of some big, square feet with an exaggerated ridge on each one, which some have (oddly) interpretted to be scars from the crucifiction (not getting any better, this) A partial absence of biography, is that a sure sign that he was Buddhist? (no, not in the slightest) Aesop's fables also contain many similarities, does that make Aesop Buddhist? (no) I can believe that, it's much more plausible than the resurrection. What does it have to do with Buddhism though? Thanks for all the above, but you've convinced me to give it a miss ---------- Post added 31-03-2014 at 10:13 ---------- I think you may find there is an overwhelming number of people who disagree with you on that. Most would think that "God" still means a powerful, supernatural being. I was not out to convince you and it was apparent from the off that whatever was put to you it wouldn't have made the slightest difference, that's why I hesitated in replying. If you do or don't watch it its no problem, I'm not on any commission or have any motive for wanting you to. My topic is just because I found it of interest and maybe other would, if only to dismiss it. You were just looking for something to dismiss without having to get your hands dirty which is kind of lazy at least. Oh well, you will be able to move along now you have done your bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 What does "Son of God" mean to you? Look at Mark 3.17: "James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder ");" Does this mean that they were physically begotten by thunder on Zebedee's wife, rather than by marital sexual intercourse? My son is my son as the result of my sexual intercourse with my wife; in researching a family medical condition, we found DNA evidence of this. Would analysis of a piece of Jesus' tissue show us "God's" DNA? Did "God" have intercourse with Mary (BTW, miraculously preserving her hymen)? So if we say that Jesus was the "Son of God", what exactly does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Shoes Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 That's certain, is it? What is your source? Because the Romans & the Jew's have historical documents that mention Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutch Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 All conjecture! None of it has any historical evidence. What is certain is that there was a MAN called Jesus, he was followed by people and went to the cross. Jesus was followed by idiots, not people. The people who lived with him face to face seeing him in the eyes crucified him. Probably for good reasons. There is no medical evidence mary was virgin. I think it more likely she lied about holy ghost to avoid joseph from getting whipped in public, for illegal affair with young girl. Just look at todays society, all sort of lies and nonsense is spread and believed as if it is truth by citizens believing anything that is told to them without questioning the original source. The bigger the lie the more intense the battle fight and feelings of insult when the truth is questioned. Considering christians get furious and oh so angry when mentioned these miracles are nothing but a load of nonsense spread by drunks, mentally insane street beggars, having a great time telling these fantasy stories. It tends to be very satisfying to ego to spread lies and make others believe and succumb to this nonsense. Just because so many people believe these fantasy lies does not mean they have some truthfull meaning in them. 99 People can believe and one sees the truth does not put the other 99 in their right because they have large numbers in support to keep this fantasy believe going. Don't think jesus would agree or support what has been made in his name afterwards. He be rather surprised and shocked and say, what the........ how did this crazy thing happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdom Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 All conjecture! None of it has any historical evidence. What is certain is that there was a MAN called Jesus, he was followed by people and went to the cross. there is no mention of a cross in the bible in its original greek form, the word stauros was used in classical greek which meant an upright stake, pole or piece of paling, " it was altered in the 4th century to suit the belief of the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruprecht1st Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Karl Marx came out with all that tripe ? I don't see why people hold him in such high regard then with stuff like that. Karl Mark espoused beliefs that failed after about 50 years. The Galilean (whoever he was) espoused beliefs that have lasted 2,000 and are still attracting adherents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Karl Marx came out with all that tripe ? I don't see why people hold him in such high regard then with stuff like that. Because he was speaking from the ego and needed that "self actualisation" to happen and above that of the common harmonious natural state. Sometimes if you read the words that people write, it opens up an extension of their inner state. As the quote above shows "opium". He was criticising and judging others that believed in religion as if it is addictive. But if he ever stops and think for himself, and actually talk and share with others. He may learn to believe that every person has a kind of inner light and an inner ethic within themselves. This is the same in each and every generation. Each person when born see the situation with new baby fresh eyes again. So that is how religion turn into knowledge and knowledge turn into hatred, and then hatred turned into a "new" religion until someone stops and say "hey.. wasn't that the same as someone who wrote and said this in year x..." In these modern days, people seem to govern themselves. Both government, spiritualist, citizen, and everything else. I thought that people are supposed to live in a more cooperative way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I was not out to convince you and it was apparent from the off that whatever was put to you it wouldn't have made the slightest difference, that's why I hesitated in replying. Of course it would, if it was any kind of compelling evidence I would have given the matter further consideration, which is why I asked in the first place. If you do or don't watch it its no problem, I'm not on any commission or have any motive for wanting you to. My topic is just because I found it of interest and maybe other would, if only to dismiss it. You were just looking for something to dismiss without having to get your hands dirty which is kind of lazy at least. Making such assumptions is kind of ignorant. I wasn't looking for anything to dismiss, I was asking for examples of evidence to determine whether it's worth watching the video or not. ---------- Post added 31-03-2014 at 13:34 ---------- Because the Romans & the Jew's have historical documents that mention Jesus. That doesn't quite make it a certainty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now