Counter point, he didn't have knowledge of all things, at least not while he was here on earth. He makes it clear that he didn't know when he was going to return after his death he mention's the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, which it's not(I probably reaching for the mustard seed one considering that was in the context of a parable).
Realistically I want to know how far this logic goes, did Jesus need to practice memorizing scripture or id he have an eidedict or foreknowledge of them. did he ever fall down while learning to walk or mispronounce his Joseph's name when learning to talk.
what do you think He meant?What do people think jesus meant when he said:
The kingdom of heaven is within?
That’s fairly hostile matt3737.
Even so I understand what you are saying. You want to be able to talk of Santa Clause in this thread as if he were real, without people questioning how that’s even possible.
The fictional Santa character was based off a real person btw.
I THINK I will avoid this thread in the future unless something outlandish is stated that can clearly be disputed again.
So do you think jesus was not a real person?
Ok...then how do you explain Christianity? because Jesus must be the most "intense" unreal person that had ever been to be the worship object of a religion like Christianity.
He lived for 33-35 years under a state ocupied by Roman Empire, books have been written about him...how is that possible?
Someone must have figured that out...becase it was supposed to live in a real city, with real parents, and doing real action...why didn't anyone said the truth?
What are you trying to say?
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”
book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals - Tacitus
If it is true that Jesus was the most influential person that has ever lived, I think the answer is yes.Well, there's one thing... at least our PTB would probably cringe and think that treatment was barbaric at best. Could it be said that we wouldn't be where we are today w/o Jesus?
If it is true that Jesus was the most influential person that has ever lived, I think the answer is yes.
I found it interesting that many people see this in a bad light..."we woudn't be here if Jesus would have not existed" said in a melancholic tone, full of implied hidden meanings.
The differences between Jesus and Buddha is like from the Earth to the Sun, which is still a poor image for meWell, the only other person I can think of with a such a similar and extreme message would be the Buddha, but he didn't go as far in his message against those who didn't want to hear about loving everyone...
The differences between Jesus and Buddha is like from the Earth to the Sun, which is still a poor image for me
Wrong Lucy…The differences between Jesus and Buddha is like from the Earth to the Sun, which is still a poor image for me
If it is true that Jesus was the most influential person that has ever lived, I think the answer is yes.
I found it interesting that many people see this in a bad light..."we woudn't be here if Jesus would have not existed" said in a melancholic tone, full of implied hidden meanings.
I can't even take this seriously...Wrong Lucy…
Then you haven’t really studied what you are speaking about.
From Wikipedia - Reports of Buddhist practices started to arrive in Western Europe by the 13th century, and were followed by trips by Christian missionaries such as John of Montecorvino and reports began to arrive in the 16th century as missionaries such as St. Francis Xavier arrived in the East.[SUP][1][/SUP] In the 19th century, some authors began to perceive similarities between Buddhist and Christian practices, e.g. in 1878 T.W. Rhys Davids wrote that the earliest missionaries to Tibet observed that similarities have been seen since the first known contact: "Lamaism with its shaven priests, its bells and rosaries, its images and holy water, its popes and bishops, its abbots and monks of many grades, its processions and feast days, its confessional and purgatory, and its worship of the double Virgin, so strongly resembles Romanism that the first Catholic missionaries thought it must be an imitation by thedevil of the religion of Christ."[SUP][2][/SUP] In 1880 Ernest De Bunsen made similar observations in that with the exception of the death of Jesus on the cross, and of the Christian doctrine of atonement, the most ancient Buddhist records resemble the traditions recorded in the Gospels about the life and doctrines of Jesus.[SUP][13][/SUP]The author of Jesus's Godama Sources claims that Western, or Christian, culture has not even developed the manner of expressions which would allow the very idea of borrowings to be considered. To support this claim the author quotes the admittedly prejudicial speech of Max Muller from his India, What Can it Teach Us, which states: "Our natural inclination would be to suppose that the Buddhist stories borrowed from our Christian sources and not vice versa. But here the conscience of the scholar comes in. Some of these stories are found in the Hinayana Buddhist Canon and date, therefore, before the Christian era".[SUP][14][/SUP]
In 1904 William Crooke suggested that Christian rosaries had originated in India and arrived in Western Europe during theCrusades via its Muslim version, the tasbih.[SUP][15][/SUP] In 1921 Charles Eliot, the British ambassador to Japan also wrote of apparent similarities between Christian practices and their counterparts in Buddhist tradition, and suggested a dependent origin for both traditions.[SUP][16][/SUP] Early in the 20th century Burnett Hillman Streetersuggested that the moral teaching of the Buddha has four resemblances to the Sermon on the Mount.[SUP][17][/SUP]
Late in the 20th century, historian Jerry H. Bentley also wrote of similarities and stated that it is possible "that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity" and suggested "attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus".[SUP][18][/SUP] Some high level Buddhists have drawn analogies between Jesus and Buddhism, e.g. in 2001 the Dalai Lama stated that "Jesus Christ also lived previous lives," and added that "So, you see, he reached a high state, either as a Bodhisattva, or an enlightened person, through Buddhist practice or something like that".[SUP][19][/SUP]
If I recall correctly, he said that he did not know the day, or the hour of his return.
I always understood this to mean that if he does not know something, then it does not exist. That is to say, his return will coincide with the end of days and the end of time.
In any case, I think that what we can say of his knowledge is based on what we believe about him - believing him to be omniscient, I do not think that he had to memorise, nor learn - but given the natural limitations of human physicality, he certainly would have fallen as a child, just as all toddlers do; and after severe beatings and blood-loss, he fell at least three times.
30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
Lucy, don’t you realize that that is how Buddha is viewed by many people who are of his faith?I can't even take this seriously...
It is laughable and also predictable...words like "suggests", "historians", "it is possible", "maybe"...I'm tired of these expressions used in these kind of articles.
The main difference between Jesus and Buddha is theological difference...Jesus Christ is the Son of the eternal God, the Maker of Heavens and the Earth, The Word and The Light, "the only way" for salvation of mankind, the holy sacrifice for the redemption of mankind, the self-existent Being, that holds all things in existence by the power of His Word. He is the Glorious One, worthy of praise and glory, that will be served and worshiped forever and ever, the Name above all names, Lord of lords and King of kings:
Philippians 2:10
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
And now compare Buddha with Jesus Christ my friend...